So here is the deal: In the midst of a bacon related conversation last night, discussing everything from delicious factors to environmental damage of meat consumption, my commitment to overdetermination was called into question. So I admit that I question overdetermination as an epistemology at times, but I hate to lose an argument. This is the result of that discussion.
Some would say this has nothing to do with Marxism, in a commitment to the epistomology I have to disagree and say the following has everything to do with Marxism.
The only two foods (groups) in the world that putting two slices of hot bacon on top of does not enhance:
1. Cold, sweet, breakfast cereal, ie. "Lucky Charms"
2. Desserts, epitomized by ice cream, bananas foster, things of that nature.
That is all.
31 January 2010
05 January 2010
Jesus as a Moral Philosopher and Secular Humanist
I meant to post this closer to the christian holiday but i forgot. This is a link to a fantastic podcast "Philosophy Bites". They recently did a show where their guest Don Cupitt talks about Jesus. Cupitt claims that the "real" Jesus is an overlooked humanist philosopher rather than the son of God. Really interesting work. As for the relevance here?
Well he compares Jesus to Marx at one point. Check it out.
http://cdn4.libsyn.com/philosophybites/CupittJesus.mp3?nvb=20100106014428&nva=20100107015428&t=041ce9c14ba58bf8c50ca
Well he compares Jesus to Marx at one point. Check it out.
http://cdn4.libsyn.com/philosophybites/CupittJesus.mp3?nvb=20100106014428&nva=20100107015428&t=041ce9c14ba58bf8c50ca
23 December 2009
Religion as the Opiate of the Masses
I think this famous Marx quote first appears in the introduction of Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, and I think it is famous from being in the Communist Manifesto, correct me if I am wrong here?
The form of the quote in "The Critique" is "It (religion) is the opium of the people". This quote is often cited, and often taken at face value to mean that religion is not for enlightened person, but rather something indulged in by the ignorant. Those who accept this quote at face value view religion as just something the ruling class keeps in place to pacify the exploited in an anti-revolutionary manner.
Marx's meaning is actually far deeper and more relevant. The quote in "Critique" is in the context of religion being dialectically both an "expression of real suffering, and a protest against real suffering". Without real suffering even the (ignorant or not) masses would feel no need to turn to religion. Religion is not always imposed by an aristocratic ruling class (as in pre-bourgeois revolutionary France), sometimes it is used by the oppressed as a means to get through the day. For a good example of this look up "Liberation Theology"
I read Marx's point to be that there is real suffering in the world, and we need to remove religion to begin to address it (this is contrary of course to Liberation Theology, which is part of the reason I think they are no better than social-democrats). When suffering is removed in the mind from the realm of the real into the realm of the supra-real it becomes impossible to address in the real. If I am poor and jobless because God is angry then the solution is to sacrifice my favorite sheep (or Lily). On the otherhand if I am poor and jobless because the demographically tiny capitalist ruling class has crashed our economy, evaporating the jobs of millions of proletarians (and however you want to define service workers) then the solution may be to remove the capitalists.
It goes without saying then that religion and socialism are incompatible. Many have argued that socialists are "soulless", and that it is impossible to be both socialist and believe in a higher power. I think socialism is incompatible with religion, but does not have to be with spirituality or belief in a higher power. I myself lean towards atheism in terms of a god who takes an active interest in our lives, but if Stephen Hawking doesn't know what happened before time started at the big bang then I sure as hell don't. So that being said it is possible to be spiritual and socialist, just not religious and socialist.
As Marx himself said (also in the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right "It is the task of history, therefore, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world." ie. it is our task as Marxist historians to pull back the veil of religion and establish the truth of the material world, and thus capitalist exploitation. (Yes Ian I know that was a very "Orthodox" statement to make.
Religion is the opiate of the masses, not that it makes them feel warm and fuzzy and forget their pain, but rather that it fogs their minds and causes them to misplace their suffering onto something out of their control. The true path to the end of misery for the human race is neither god nor the end of exploitation, but one leads nowhere and the other is a step in the right direction.
The form of the quote in "The Critique" is "It (religion) is the opium of the people". This quote is often cited, and often taken at face value to mean that religion is not for enlightened person, but rather something indulged in by the ignorant. Those who accept this quote at face value view religion as just something the ruling class keeps in place to pacify the exploited in an anti-revolutionary manner.
Marx's meaning is actually far deeper and more relevant. The quote in "Critique" is in the context of religion being dialectically both an "expression of real suffering, and a protest against real suffering". Without real suffering even the (ignorant or not) masses would feel no need to turn to religion. Religion is not always imposed by an aristocratic ruling class (as in pre-bourgeois revolutionary France), sometimes it is used by the oppressed as a means to get through the day. For a good example of this look up "Liberation Theology"
I read Marx's point to be that there is real suffering in the world, and we need to remove religion to begin to address it (this is contrary of course to Liberation Theology, which is part of the reason I think they are no better than social-democrats). When suffering is removed in the mind from the realm of the real into the realm of the supra-real it becomes impossible to address in the real. If I am poor and jobless because God is angry then the solution is to sacrifice my favorite sheep (or Lily). On the otherhand if I am poor and jobless because the demographically tiny capitalist ruling class has crashed our economy, evaporating the jobs of millions of proletarians (and however you want to define service workers) then the solution may be to remove the capitalists.
It goes without saying then that religion and socialism are incompatible. Many have argued that socialists are "soulless", and that it is impossible to be both socialist and believe in a higher power. I think socialism is incompatible with religion, but does not have to be with spirituality or belief in a higher power. I myself lean towards atheism in terms of a god who takes an active interest in our lives, but if Stephen Hawking doesn't know what happened before time started at the big bang then I sure as hell don't. So that being said it is possible to be spiritual and socialist, just not religious and socialist.
As Marx himself said (also in the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right "It is the task of history, therefore, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world." ie. it is our task as Marxist historians to pull back the veil of religion and establish the truth of the material world, and thus capitalist exploitation. (Yes Ian I know that was a very "Orthodox" statement to make.
Religion is the opiate of the masses, not that it makes them feel warm and fuzzy and forget their pain, but rather that it fogs their minds and causes them to misplace their suffering onto something out of their control. The true path to the end of misery for the human race is neither god nor the end of exploitation, but one leads nowhere and the other is a step in the right direction.
14 October 2009
Why Be an Economist?
Subtitle:
A Profound Question
or more realistically
A self absorbed journey through some linguistic constructs in an attempt to justify my existence, and silence the proverbial Jewish mother in my brain that is telling me "it is not to late to go to medical school."
Waking up today and finding myself in my 4th year of a PhD program in economics has lead me to question what is this profession that I am spending so long to become a part of? Many days I find myself hating "economists" and thinking "I am nothing like these people", other days I consider myself lucky to be surrounded by such interesting and thought provoking individuals, who are also good, and caring human beings (reminder I attend UMass not a "normal econ school").
Regardless of my feelings about those around me I usually don't feel like an economist, I certainly am following a vastly different career path than most economists. I often can't remember what attracted me to the field in the first place. The following writings are an attempt to examine in a broad sense what the role of economics is, and hopefully arrive at an answer as to why I continue to follow this path.
So what is it that an economist does? In the biggest picture sense an economist is a social theorist who chooses economic processes as entry points of their social analysis. Already have arrived at a problem. The traditional (at least within my epistemological training) way of viewing society is as a jumble of political, cultural, economic, and natural processes. These processes overdetermine each other (are each other's causes and effects, and neither cause or effect), however what draws the lines between these processes into distinct linguistic categories? What makes a given process a political process rather than a cultural process? Voting for instance, traditionally defined as a political process, but how do I know this? In the linguistics of the analysis lies the answer (traditionally). These linguistic categories are historically contingent and overdetermined. That is, how we have used words in the past to define processes, and how processes have been analyzed before, as well as many other factors, allows us to use these linguistic categories to compartmentalize processes into political, economic, etc. Relying on this method of distinguishing processes based on linguistic tradition is essential for me, or the world falls out of any recognizable order, and meaningful analysis becomes impossible...Therefore an economist is someone who chooses economic entry points for social analysis.
At some point in my life the economic processes of society seemed to have primacy, or at very least seemed like a logical entry point to achieve my goals. I wanted to be an economist. There was no "ah ha" moment for me in economics, and frankly no specific things stand out in my consciousness that helped to overdetermine the choice to peruse economics. This seems important as it is different from how my mind works in reflection on most other topics, for instance I remember two specific determinants that shaped my decision to propose Catholic marriage to Alison. That being said, logically when I decided to study economics, if political entry points had made more sense to me, or cultural, or natural, I would have made another choice as to my path through the education system. The choice to enter the academic system at all is being intentionally ignored here.
Having reached a point in my life (today) where I more or less accept that economic processes are valid as (over)determinants, but they do not hold any special place in my heart why continue in this field? What good can be done here? It is clear that work along these lines (self analyzing postmodern gibberish) will never be accepted by a discipline that values mathematical proof, however I continue to engage in it. Why do I stay in a field and refuse to work within the commonly accepted boundaries of that field? What is to be gained? I still want to be an economist, but I don't want to do what I perceive most economists as doing. In terms of the big picture however the choice of an economic entry point does not feel wrong, we have been reduced to level of abstract intuition. Returning again, what do economists do that attracts me?
Economists choose an entry point out of the infinity of processes that fit into our linguistic construct of what constitutes economics, and then theorize about it, or in the case of our bastard cousins econometricians, try to empirically show that their selected process holds to some arbitrary standard of truth. It is essential to believe that theorizing about our economic entry points is shaping the world in a positive way to have desire to continue in the profession.
So leaving aside what has determined the choice of entry point to be economic, we move forward into a theory. Our analysis of these theories will change the world, there is no doubt about that. It is impossible not to change the world when we do theory if they are by their natures overdetermined. My teaching, my social interaction, my very life is complexly shaped by my engagement with theories that have economic entry points, as well as those that do not, however I am making a conscious decision to have economic entry points in my own work. But the underlying question remains: Am I changing the world for the better, or just changing the world? (This is not to say that my changes are not insignificant or arbitrary, but my very existence changes the world) I know that my goals in theory are for a better world, but really I cannot by definition begin to understand all of the consequences of my actions.
This is where I am stuck. The big problem.
I know that I want greater world equality, to live under a less exploitative system of production, but more importantly to advance human civilization through science and technology at the fastest rate possible, to know God....while yippee aren't I a fucking wonderful person? But is studying economics the best way to chase my goals? In a broader sense are my goals worth chasing, and where will I obtain an answer to this question?
But the problem remains, if these are my goals, and the consequences of my actions are unknowable, why study economics? Because the consequences of influencing the world in the desired direction with other entry points besides economics are just as unknowable, and I have already invested a lot of time working in economics because of reasons I no longer remember? How very unsatisfactory of a reason. But for me it is part of the Why in the statement "I am an economist"
To return to the title "Why be an Economist?" I don't have a better answer than "It is as good as being a ......fill in the blank", and it is how you do your job matters just as much as what your job is.
That was hopefully the most narcissistic post for the remainder of the year.....I can't help but mix self absorption with self reflection.
A Profound Question
or more realistically
A self absorbed journey through some linguistic constructs in an attempt to justify my existence, and silence the proverbial Jewish mother in my brain that is telling me "it is not to late to go to medical school."
Waking up today and finding myself in my 4th year of a PhD program in economics has lead me to question what is this profession that I am spending so long to become a part of? Many days I find myself hating "economists" and thinking "I am nothing like these people", other days I consider myself lucky to be surrounded by such interesting and thought provoking individuals, who are also good, and caring human beings (reminder I attend UMass not a "normal econ school").
Regardless of my feelings about those around me I usually don't feel like an economist, I certainly am following a vastly different career path than most economists. I often can't remember what attracted me to the field in the first place. The following writings are an attempt to examine in a broad sense what the role of economics is, and hopefully arrive at an answer as to why I continue to follow this path.
So what is it that an economist does? In the biggest picture sense an economist is a social theorist who chooses economic processes as entry points of their social analysis. Already have arrived at a problem. The traditional (at least within my epistemological training) way of viewing society is as a jumble of political, cultural, economic, and natural processes. These processes overdetermine each other (are each other's causes and effects, and neither cause or effect), however what draws the lines between these processes into distinct linguistic categories? What makes a given process a political process rather than a cultural process? Voting for instance, traditionally defined as a political process, but how do I know this? In the linguistics of the analysis lies the answer (traditionally). These linguistic categories are historically contingent and overdetermined. That is, how we have used words in the past to define processes, and how processes have been analyzed before, as well as many other factors, allows us to use these linguistic categories to compartmentalize processes into political, economic, etc. Relying on this method of distinguishing processes based on linguistic tradition is essential for me, or the world falls out of any recognizable order, and meaningful analysis becomes impossible...Therefore an economist is someone who chooses economic entry points for social analysis.
At some point in my life the economic processes of society seemed to have primacy, or at very least seemed like a logical entry point to achieve my goals. I wanted to be an economist. There was no "ah ha" moment for me in economics, and frankly no specific things stand out in my consciousness that helped to overdetermine the choice to peruse economics. This seems important as it is different from how my mind works in reflection on most other topics, for instance I remember two specific determinants that shaped my decision to propose Catholic marriage to Alison. That being said, logically when I decided to study economics, if political entry points had made more sense to me, or cultural, or natural, I would have made another choice as to my path through the education system. The choice to enter the academic system at all is being intentionally ignored here.
Having reached a point in my life (today) where I more or less accept that economic processes are valid as (over)determinants, but they do not hold any special place in my heart why continue in this field? What good can be done here? It is clear that work along these lines (self analyzing postmodern gibberish) will never be accepted by a discipline that values mathematical proof, however I continue to engage in it. Why do I stay in a field and refuse to work within the commonly accepted boundaries of that field? What is to be gained? I still want to be an economist, but I don't want to do what I perceive most economists as doing. In terms of the big picture however the choice of an economic entry point does not feel wrong, we have been reduced to level of abstract intuition. Returning again, what do economists do that attracts me?
Economists choose an entry point out of the infinity of processes that fit into our linguistic construct of what constitutes economics, and then theorize about it, or in the case of our bastard cousins econometricians, try to empirically show that their selected process holds to some arbitrary standard of truth. It is essential to believe that theorizing about our economic entry points is shaping the world in a positive way to have desire to continue in the profession.
So leaving aside what has determined the choice of entry point to be economic, we move forward into a theory. Our analysis of these theories will change the world, there is no doubt about that. It is impossible not to change the world when we do theory if they are by their natures overdetermined. My teaching, my social interaction, my very life is complexly shaped by my engagement with theories that have economic entry points, as well as those that do not, however I am making a conscious decision to have economic entry points in my own work. But the underlying question remains: Am I changing the world for the better, or just changing the world? (This is not to say that my changes are not insignificant or arbitrary, but my very existence changes the world) I know that my goals in theory are for a better world, but really I cannot by definition begin to understand all of the consequences of my actions.
This is where I am stuck. The big problem.
I know that I want greater world equality, to live under a less exploitative system of production, but more importantly to advance human civilization through science and technology at the fastest rate possible, to know God....while yippee aren't I a fucking wonderful person? But is studying economics the best way to chase my goals? In a broader sense are my goals worth chasing, and where will I obtain an answer to this question?
But the problem remains, if these are my goals, and the consequences of my actions are unknowable, why study economics? Because the consequences of influencing the world in the desired direction with other entry points besides economics are just as unknowable, and I have already invested a lot of time working in economics because of reasons I no longer remember? How very unsatisfactory of a reason. But for me it is part of the Why in the statement "I am an economist"
To return to the title "Why be an Economist?" I don't have a better answer than "It is as good as being a ......fill in the blank", and it is how you do your job matters just as much as what your job is.
That was hopefully the most narcissistic post for the remainder of the year.....I can't help but mix self absorption with self reflection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)