Barkley Rosser — Who Is Really A Socialist? [Updated]

Barkley Rosser either makes a bad mistake in starting with Marx's definition of "socialism" as state-ownership of the means of production as exclusive, or he is carrying water for the ownership class that uses this arbitrary definition to demonize the opposition to its rent-seeking and parasitic rent extraction, e.g., by socializing negative externality, the result of which is now climate change. I suspect that he was shooting from the hip and shot himself in the foot instead of hitting his target. Disappointing for a smart guy. On the other hand, I often disagree with his analysis when it exceeds the scope of his field, which is economics within the scope of the conventional approach to it. Such is the case here, in my view, although he does bring it non-economic factors.

Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperativeownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms.[16] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of factor markets and money with engineering and technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws from those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system.[25]By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm, or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.[26][27][28] The socialist calculation debate concerns the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a socialist system.

Socialist politics has been both internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions, and at other times independent and critical of unions; and present in both industrialised and developing nations.[29] Originating within the socialist movement, social democracy has embraced a mixed economy with a market that includes substantial state intervention in the form of income redistribution, regulation, and a welfare state. Economic democracy proposes a sort of market socialism where there is more decentralized control of companies, currencies, investments, and natural resources.

In particular, critics of "socialism" that charge it is a failed system that history exposes as inferior ignore a factor that I regard as the most salient one, namely, the ferocious opposition and actual violent attacks of the capitalist, so-called liberal order  (read "bourgeois liberal" plutonomy)  on any hint of social power and control that would limit the power and control of the privileged elite and which imposes a dictatorship of the ruling class through their minions, behind a facade of representative democracy. In the US, for instance, the a bipartisan establishment is rife with corruption, much of it legalized.

Economists simply are not in a position to hold themselves out as experts capable of commenting definitively on these matters since they have put so many relevant factor beyond the scope of their subject matter. The result is an economics devoid of connection with reality.

In the real world, capitalism has been linked historically with imperialism and colonialism. Neoliberalism can be viewed as joined at the hip with neo-imperialism and neocolonialism. Neoconservative and liberal internationalism/interventionism are both based on "spreading freedom and democracy" which is equated with economic liberal as bourgeois liberalism, which is liberal chiefly in the sense that powerful elites are enabled by capture of the state to extract rent without limitation and to do so globally, backed by a powerful military and control of the global financial system.

This is becoming especially important now that "socialism" is becoming a hot topic and economists think that they are are in a position to be best informed about it and comment on it. That is not necessarily so. Very few have the breadth and depth of knowledge of Michael Hudson, for instance.

Socialism involves not only economics, but also other fields such as political theory, sociology, anthropology, history, general systems theory, psychology, and philosophy.

Oh, and did I forget physics, you know, like neoclassical economics is trying to imitate? See Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?

Is genuine socialism best characterized in terms of government that is actually "of the people, by the people and for the people" rather than being controlled by a ruling class and operated for special interests as a representative democracy under capitalism and the way the US was really organized under the Constitution?

Econospeak

Who Is Really A Socialist?
J. Barkley Rosser | Professor of Economics and Business Administration James Madison University

UPDATED

Yves Smith weighs in here. Useful in my view, but also incomplete. She also ignores the political aspect of external pressure, including threat of force and actual force, that I brought in above. It is very difficult to disentangle the social, political, financial and economic, especially when it involves key international and geopolitical input. Characterizing "socialism" based on such historical examples is naive, in my view.

For example, is Venezuela a "failed state" entirely owing to "socialist" policy or in part, even great part, owing to US pressure since Chavez, including a former coup attempt. Moreover, the sorry state that Venezuela was in prior to Chavez and which underlay his rise was a result of the comprador government that served as US puppet, a state to which is the US is working reestablish there. Simlarly, a great deal of Soviet and Red Chinese policy was a response to pressure, threat of force and actual application of force from the "free world" dominated by "capitalism" as the mortal enemy of "socialism"

Moreover, "capitalism" and "socialism" are such high level abstractions they are difficult to define technically in a way that can be measured quantitatively. And quantitative modeling is a sine qua non of science these days. Otherwise it is speculative in a way that is undecidable on data-based evidence. However, to reduce the problem to what is measurable often excludes material factors that are relevant. So the end-result is based on opinion, which famously suffers from cognitive bias, including ideological bias.

Justin Weinberg — Why Is Philosophy Important?

Why is philosophy important? The very question itself indicates that many assume that philosophy is not important.

But this begs the question, what is philosophy. There are many answers and the assumptions involved in answering it will influence the outcome.

A reason for this is that there are many approaches to philosophy, so that "philosophy" has come to mean many things depending on how the terms is interpreted and used.

First, there is a controversial issue now raging in the profession over "world philosophy." Some think that Western academic philosophy has failed to recognize the contributions of Eastern thought, for example. Others would include so-called primitive thought.

This reminds me a story about an African shaman attending a Western conference on theology. Someone confronted him with the "fact" that there is no literature so there is no theology. The shaman replied, "We don't write like you do. We dance."

One of the landmark works in world philosophy is the magisterial sociological study of Randall Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change.

In fact, UNESCO has declared World Philosophy Day to be celebrated every year, and more is being published on World Philosophy as a topic of interest in inquiry.

Secondly, there are many schools of thought in the Western intellectual tradition, as there are in other non-Western traditions. Most of them have different conceptions about the subject matter of philosophy, philosophical method, criteria, and so forth. Compared to the sciences, philosophy appears "lost at sea without a compass."

Thirdly, various philosophies underlies different world views and ideologies that are presumed. Everyone has a world view that serves as a framework for thought and action. Most people do not reflect on their framework and assume that the framework reflected the essential structure of reality, so that those that presume a different framework are misguided.

Moreover, most people are unaware of how broadly and deeply they are influenced by previous ideas.

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. —John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, ch. 24, p. 383

I would expand that observation to include a much wider range of "influencers" instead of limiting it to economists and political philosophers.

Socrates founded the Western intellectual tradition, which developed into Western liberalism, in making the observation that a life not reflected upon is not worth the living, also translated as, "The unexamined life is not worth living." 

Socrates became a martyr for truth in this quest, ironically having been condemned to death for mocking the gods and corrupting the youth in a society ruled by direct democracy. That warning echoes through time, and until recently every educated person was expected to have read The Apology, where Socrates defends himself at his trial before his peers on a capital offense.

In this view Socrates presented, philosophy is a way of life base on inquiry, which requires freedom of thought, expression, and association for open inquiry and debate to take place. And open inquiry and debate are foundational to the liberal view of democratic government.

There is a reason that philosophy is said to be the queen of the sciences, although Clement of Alexandria changed this to the “handmaid of theology.” That, of course, ended with the Renaissance and the rise of the Modern Age. 

It seems that a big reason that many take philosophy to be no longer important results from the belief that philosophy has been replaced by science and the scientific method. But since the enduring questions fall beyond the scope of the scientific method, which stipulates its criterion as empirical, they remain unresolved and refuse to go away. The result in competing ideologies whose philosophical assumptions are simply presumed. Philosophy seeks to uncover the hidden assumptions  in these presumptions, which are often tacit and held implicitly.

Another big reason is that academic philosophers have chosen to focus either on analytic philosophy, which appears to critics like logic-chopping and word salad, or postmodernism, which seems to avoid the more interesting questions in favor of relativism or skepticism. Neither address the "big" questions, assuming this to be a waste of time owing to scope limitation imposed by methodology.

I have already explored this question of important here at MNE in a previous post on the purpose of education in the post and in the comments, where I have stated my views. 

In summary, my view is that philosophy is important in that it considers the whole in terms of key fundamentals, and it's method is reasoning and experience taken broadly. It is a general systems approach that is oriented not only toward explanation but also probem-solving. 

As such, philosophy is essentially about the study and application of creative and critical thinking from a integrated and holistic perspective. Being dynamic, philosophy is also historical and unfolds toward the horizon in the march of time. Being historical, in its also path-dependent and brings the past into the present and future.

Philosophy is important because ideas are important and in a complex adaptive system new ideas are emergent. Philosophy is about dealing with this creatively and critically instead of being chiefly reactive and unreflective, not learning from experience as ideas are tested in the crucible of action.

Daily Nous
Why Is Philosophy Important?

Justin Weinberg | Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of South Carolina

Caitlin Johnstone — Truth

Caitlin Johnston summarizes the foundational issue of Eastern and Western philosophy quite nicely. The history of thought begins with reflections on this. Indeed, one view of philosophy is that it is reflection on experience.

Well-stated. A+

Caitlin Johnstone — Rogue Journalist
Truth
Caitlin Johnstone

Julian Baggini — Book clinic: which books best explain why life is worth living?

Short.

These excerpts summarize the answer I would have given, too.

Q. Which books can tell me, from a philosophical standpoint, what makes life worthwhile or worth living?

A. Philosopher and author Julian Baggini writes: 

Surprisingly, few of the world’s great philosophers have directly addressed this question. Instead, they have focused on a subtly different question: what does it mean to live well?

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle emphasised the need to cultivate good character, finding the sweet spot between harmful extremes. For example, generosity lies between the extremes of meanness and profligacy, courage between cowardice and rashness. A remarkably similar vision is presented in the Chinese classics The Analects of Confucius and Mencius.…

Should all else fail, there is my own What’s It All About?, which aims to shows how philosophy does not so much answer the big questions as help provide us with the resources to answer them for ourselves.

Some of the most important questions are "the enduring questions" that have to be approach anew in every era and also answered personally.

One of these enduring questions is, what does it mean to live a good life as an individual in a good society.

The Guardian
Book clinic: which books best explain why life is worth living?

Julian Baggini

See also

Good review that reconciles opposing viewpoints. Ibn Khaldun was a precursor of modern sociology and economics. Longish.

3:AM Magazine — Whatever It Is, We Are Against It
Good Orientalism: Robert Irwin vs Ernest Gellner on Ibn Khaldun. Boom!
Richard Marshall

Ronald J. Daniels — Philosophy Matters

Philosophy matters. Just ask Bill Miller. Bill started his professional journey as a philosophy graduate student at Johns Hopkins. He became a Wall Street legend. Based on my conversations with students and parents over many years, this is not the typical narrative associated with a humanities major. But Bill tells this story well.

Known for his analytical acumen and iconoclastic approach to markets, Bill attributes much of his success to the habits of mind he developed studying the works of great philosophical minds, such as William James, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Bertrand Russell. And he believes passionately that future generations deserve—and require—a similar foundation.

Indeed, philosophy defines what it is to be human, to lead lives that are meaningful, and to create societies that are just and humane. Through it, we take up significant ideas and hone the tools of critical analysis and considered judgment. And the contemporary challenges we face—of the genomics revolution, the rise of artificial intelligence, the growth in income inequality, social and political fragmentation, and our capacity for devastating war, to name but a few—all invite philosophical perspective.

Thanks to Bill's recent $75 million gift to the Johns Hopkins University Department of Philosophy, we are starting on a journey to set a new standard for excellence in this most necessary discipline.

Johns Hopkins Magazine
Philosophy Matters
Ronald J. Daniels | President

Amy Willis — Can majoring in philosophy make you a better person?

That's a question that EconTalk host Russ Roberts poses to University of Chicago philosopher Martha Nussbaum in this week's EconTalk episode.* Roberts expresses his concern that we've lost sight of character development in the modern age, and wonders whether the pursuit of philosophy and the humanities more broadly might mitigate that problem.

In response, Nussbaum gives an assessment and an appeal for the Humanities in universities today....

So, for example, all the Jesuit universities in Latin America and elsewhere are basically on the Liberal Arts model. But I really think that's the right way for all universities to be. Because, university education has a two-fold purpose. It prepares you for a career; but it also prepares you for being a good citizen and having a complete, meaningful life. And those are both important purposes.

Disclosure: I graduated from Georgetown University, a Jesuit institution, and I majored in philosophy as an undergrad.

At that time, all undergrads had to minor in philosophy in the third and fourth years. The philosophy major was a license to explore since it required taking only other philosophy course in addition to the minor requirement, which left a lot of room for electives.

It was a good choice for me, and I subsequently went on to grad school in philosophy.

Plato characterized philosophy as reflection on experience. "The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates in Plato's Apology, 38a5-6.

Science was formerly called "natural philosophy," and the development of mathematics was closely related to philosophy.

While science, mathematics and technology are key aspects of Western civilization, Western culture, tradition, and institutions have been no less significant in the development of global civilization. The humanities pursue these aspects of living a full life.

The study of philosophy is important for several reasons. First, philosophy is about the method of inquiry that underlies the Western intellectual tradition and which resulted in the development of scientific method. Inquiry is based on reasoning that employs logic and critical thinking

Secondly, philosophy considered the "enduring questions" the various responses to which have shaped Western civilization.

Philosophy is the foundational discipline since it inquires into reality, truth, goodness and beauty, the objects of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics, as well as social and political philosophy. Adam Smith was a professor of philosophy, and Karl Marx had a doctorate in philosophy.

EconoLog
Can majoring in philosophy make you a better person?
Amy Willis

Robert Paul Wolff — From The Horse's Mouth

Professor Warren Goldfarb recently sent me an e-mail message with the following very interesting and useful comment on my argument that we should read philosophical works in their entirety. Goldfarb is the latest in Harvard’s long line of philosophical logicians – a line that includes my classmate Charles Parsons, his doctoral dissertation director Willard Van Orman Quine, and his dissertation director Alfred North Whitehead. Here is what Goldfarb had to say….

I regard thinkers like John Maynard Keynes, Abba Lerner, and Kenneth Boulding as philosophers rather than "economists." And of course, Karl Marx. Their work was far broader than isolated issues in economics. This is also true of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothard, all of whom wrote about liberalism in addition to narrowly economic issues.

Philosophers deal with foundations and they attempt to do rigorously by applying a particular method, sometimes of their own devising. It's not accidentally that of the two groups mentioned above, one is considered left and the other right.

The great economists are, as Robert Heilbroner observed, "worldly philosophers." They are aware that economic issues are seated in social and political issues, and social and political issues in ontological, epistemological, ethical, and aesthetic issues.

The overarching foundational issue is what it means to live a good life in a good society, and in the modern West that becomes what does it means for free individuals to life a good life in a good society.

It is important to give thinkers a full hearing in order to understand what they are saying in terms of the issues they are actually dealing with. Too often, readers rush to conclude with they think a writer is saying, or, worse, look for confirmation of their own position. Then there is misrepresentation both unconscious or intentional.

The Philosopher's Stone

From The Horse's Mouth

Robert Paul Wolff | Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Paul Ratner — Teaching Students Philosophy Will Improve Their Academic Performance, Shows Study

Move over STEM.

There are many attempts to improve student performance which result in a host of measures, ranging from misguided to inspired. Such efforts include not assigning students homework, recalibrating standardized tests to account for unfair background advantages, or subjecting students to the hard-to-fathom Common Core standards. But a recent endeavor in the UK found another solution which actually appeared to have worked - the students were taught philosophy!

A study published last year demonstrated that 9 to 10 year olds, who took part in a year-long series of philosophy-oriented lessons, showed significant improvement in scores over their peers in a control group. The study involved over 3000 children in 48 primary schools all around England. The kids who were taking philosophy classes improved their math and reading skills by about two months of additional progress compared to the students who didn't take the classes.…

The importance of liberal education being rediscovered?

big think
Teaching Students Philosophy Will Improve Their Academic Performance, Shows Study

Paul Ratner

JR Barch — … On Raising the Level of Collective Consciousness [I]

There are three major fields of thought or areas, before our consciousness, present in the mind:

1. Science – including education

2. Philosophy – great conditioning ideas

3. Psychology – what is man essentially, and how does he function?

The first two deal with the proper use of the mind and intellectual faculty – the power of discrimination – so that correct knowledge arises from correct perception, correct deduction, and correct witness (accurate evidence). Governments around the world commit a grave crime against humanity by LYING in order to sustain their particular ideology. So does the advertising and entertainment industries. No parent would LIE to their children if they wanted their kids to grow up with a clear mind and right habitual use of the mental faculties; and to be in touch, inside of themselves, with a sense of integrity, dignity and self-respect, extending to others. People forget that it is our behaviour towards one another, based on the inclusivity and universality of the sense of self, that determines what happens in the world; the ideologies are not necessarily compelling. It depends upon whether or not we are willing to be slaves, to whatever mind says. Or to put it in other words, whether or not our relations with ourselves and others come from a deeper place, free of all ideologies, because they are centred in the greater reality of being.…

Inspecting the foundation. If a foundation rests on granite, an edifice built on it can be strong. If  foundation is set in sand, any edifice built on it will not only be weak but also dangerous.

heteconomist
… On Raising the Level of Collective Consciousness [I]
JR Barch

Hannah Richardson — Philosophy sessions 'boost primary school results'

Liberal education being rethought?

Weekly philosophy sessions in class can boost primary school pupils' ability in maths and literacy, a study says.

More than 3,000 nine and 10-year-olds in 48 UK schools took part in hour-long sessions aimed at raising their ability to question, reason and form arguments.

A study for the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) found pupils' ability in reading and maths scores improved by an average of two months over a year.

For disadvantaged children, the study found writing skills were also boosted.
The trial of the Philosophy for Children programme (P4C) focused on children in Years 4 and 5 - aged nine and 10.

It was part of efforts by the charity, EEF, to evaluate ways in which schools are spending pupil premium money beneficially on children from poorer backgrounds.

The disadvantaged pupils in the trial, those on free school meals, saw their reading skills improve by four months, their maths by three months and their writing ability by two months.…

In a typical session, pupils and teachers sit together in a circle. The pupils are shown a video clip or newspaper article to stimulate their interest in a subject. This is followed by a short period of silent thinking time.

The class then splits into pairs or small groups to discuss questions on the subject before coming back together for a whole-class discussion.

Subjects covered included whether a healthy heart should be donated to a person who has not looked after themselves.

BBC
Philosophy sessions 'boost primary school results'
Hannah Richardson | BBC News education reporter

Simon Glendinning — Five Things You Need To Know About The Philosophy Of Europe

1. Europe enters philosophy in the context of a distinctively philosophical conception of human history. 

2. For philosophy, the history of Europe unfolds within universal history. 

3. Philosophical history of the world (universal history) has Europe at the head. 

4. Philosophical history of the world is also a discourse of Europe’s modernity 

5. The discourse of Europe’s modernity is… falling apart.

Social Europe Journal
Five Things You Need To Know About The Philosophy Of Europe
Simon Glendinning | Professor of European Philosophy at the European Institute of the London School of Economics and Political Science

Diane Coyle — Economics and humankind

“Political economy, or economics, is a study of man’s actions in the ordinary business of life; it inquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. It follows the actions of individuals and of nations as they seek, by separate or collective endeavour, to increase the material means of their well-being and to turn their resources to the best account. Thus it is on the one side a study of wealth, and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man.” — Alfred Marshall, Economics of Industry

Here is the complete reference: Elements of economics of industry, being the first volume of Elements of economics, p. 1.

The Enlightened Economist

Economics and humankind

Diane Coyle | freelance economist and a former advisor to the UK Treasury. She is a member of the UK Competition Commission and is acting Chairman of the BBC Trust, the governing body of the British Broadcasting Corporation

Another good Marshall quote:

Balliol Croft, Cambridge 27. ii. 06 My dear Bowley,

I have not been able to lay my hands on any notes as to Mathematico-economics that would be of any use to you: and I have very indistinct memories of what I used to think on the subject. I never read mathematics now: in fact I have forgotten even how to integrate a good many things.

But I know I had a growing feeling in the later years of my work at the subject that a good mathematical theorem dealing with economic hypotheses was very unlikely to be good economics: and I went more and more on the rules — (1) Use mathematics as a short-hand language, rather than as an engine of inquiry. (2) Keep to them till you have done. (3) Translate into English. (4) Then illustrate by examples that are important in real life. (5) Burn the mathematics. (6) If you can’t succeed in 4, burn 3. This last I did often.

I believe in Newton’s Principia Methods, because they carry so much of the ordinary mind with them. Mathematics used in a Fellowship thesis by a man who is not a mathematician by nature — and I have come across a good deal of that — seems to me an unmixed evil. And I think you should do all you can to prevent people from using Mathematics in cases in which the English language is as short as the Mathematical …

Your emptyhandedly,

Alfred Marshall

David Brendel — How Philosophy Makes You a Better Leader

The goal of most executive coaching and leadership development is behavior change—help the individual identify and change the behaviors that are getting in the way of, and reinforce the behaviors associated with, effective leadership. But what about the beliefs and values that drive behavior? 

The benefits of introspection and reflection on one’s own character and beliefs receive less attention in a typical coaching session than the benefits of behavior change. Perhaps this is not surprising in our fast-paced and technology-driven business world, where there is little time to stop and think, and where people want (and are paying for) immediate outcomes. Despite growing recognition of the benefits of “mindfulness” activities (such as yoga and meditation) and an introverted style, self-reflection on philosophical issues—such as values, character virtues, and wisdom—is relatively neglected. Executive coaching and leadership development programs rarely include much, if anything, about the power of clarifying one’s philosophical world-view. But there is mounting evidence that they should. 

Neuroscience research on self-reflection supports this notion.…

How reflection makes you a better person.

"the life which is unexamined is not worth living." Socrates, in Plato's Apology, 38a

Harvard Business Review — HBR Blog Network
How Philosophy Makes You a Better Leader
David Brendel

Nigel Warburton — Talk With Me

...Conversation without critical judgment becomes mere chatter and airing of different opinions — as William Empson wrote in his poem ‘Let It Go’ (1949):

"The contradictions cover such a range.The talk would talk and go so far aslant.You don't want madhouse and the whole thing there."

However, it was John Stuart Mill who crystallised the importance of having your ideas challenged through engagement with others who disagree with you. In the second chapter of On Liberty (1859), he argued for the immense value of dissenting voices. It is the dissenters who force us to think, who challenge received opinion, who nudge us away from dead dogma to beliefs that have survived critical challenge, the best that we can hope for. Dissenters are of great value even when they are largely or even totally mistaken in their beliefs. As he put it: ‘Both teachers and learners go to sleep at their post, as soon as there is no enemy in the field.’

Whenever philosophical education lapses into learning facts about history and texts, regurgitating an instructor’s views, or learning from a textbook, it moves away from its Socratic roots in conversation. Then it becomes so much the worse for philosophy and for the students on the receiving end of what the radical educationalist Paolo Freire referred to pejoratively in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) as the ‘banking’ of knowledge. The point of philosophy is not to have a range of facts at your disposal, though that might be useful, nor to become a walking Wikipedia or ambulant data bank: rather, it is to develop the skills and sensitivity to be able to argue about some of the most significant questions we can ask ourselves, questions about reality and appearance, life and death, god and society. As Plato’s Socrates tells us, ‘These are not trivial questions we are discussing here, we are discussing how to live.’

Aeon
Talk with me
Nigel Warburton

Hale Stewart — Why Does Anyone Listen To Conservative Economists Anymore?

Here's the bottom line with all of the above individuals. While they've all proven themselves to be highly educated individuals with impressive credentials, they all share another, less-flattering common trait: they've all be universally wrong in their predictions and prognostications regarding the current recovery. As NDD [New Deal Democrat] pointed out on Thursday, this makes their basic profession a philosophy, not a science. In most other disciplines, this record of inaccuracy would mean their advice was no longer sought. However, they still have an audience and, most importantly, still exert an influence over policy proscriptions. The money question is now, "why are people seeking this advice when they have been this wrong?" 

The Bonddad Blog
Why Does Anyone Listen To Conservative Economists Anymore?
Hale Stewart

Hamid Dabashi — Can non-Europeans think?

What happens with thinkers who operate outside the European philosophical 'pedigree'?

Al Jazeera
Can non-Europeans think?
Hamid Dabashi | Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University

MIT Technology Review — Poll Reveals Quantum Physicists’ Disagreement About the Nature of Reality

A survey of leading thinkers shows that they are as far as ever from agreeing on the nature of reality

MIT Technology Review | The Physics arXiv Blog
Poll Reveals Quantum Physicists’ Disagreement About the Nature of Reality

Here is the study.

Dave Elder-Vass on the social construction of knowledge

Short post on the social construction of knowledge. Highly relevant to issues under discussion here, especially with respect to orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Well worth the little time it takes to read.

Read it at Understanding Society
Response to Little 
Dave Elder-Vass | senior lecturer in sociology at Loughborough University and author as well of The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency

Colin McGinn — Philosophy by Another Name

Some philosophers have physics envy, too, largely because they think that only real scientists get respect in the currency of contemporary culture.

Pitiful. Typifies what is wrong with academic philosophy. The obvious retort is. if you want to be considered a scientist, then do the math.

Oh right, academic philosophers in the US already did that by focusing attention on logical positivism in the early 20th century and then symbolic logic back in the Sixties.

Traditional inquiry about the enduring questions based on perennial wisdom went out the window. Just as contemporary New Classical economists do not read in the history of economics, so too, contemporary philosopher have abandoned the history of ideas.

As a result, philosophy now has bad name since it has not live up to its stated purpose, "philosophy" meaning love of wisdom. Contemporary academic philosophy aborted that search when scientists started getting all the respect, since they apparently felt left out, as McGinn's article shows.

The word “philosopher,” as everyone knows, means “lover of wisdom,” from the Greek. Its origin is sometimes attributed to Pythagoras, who is said to have coined it in order to distinguish people like himself from the sophists (both words have the same Greek root, “sophia”). Sophists, Pythagoras argued, are not genuine lovers of knowledge but only purveyors of rhetorical tricks, whereas another group of thinkers — those who possess a true “thirst for learning” — qualify as the real thing. This name stuck and came to be used to describe a very wide range of thinkers — anyone with a real intellectual interest. It is now, however, used extremely narrowly, at least within the academy, excluding people from most academic departments, but still applied to the few who study the subject now called “philosophy.”Those inquirers in other fields have new names more suitable to their specificity: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and history among them. But philosophy is still called by the old highly general name Pythagoras introduced. And here we already see an obvious objection to the label: Isn’t everyone employed in a university, and indeed some people beyond, a “lover of wisdom”?

Most academics are not “sophists”! Physicists, say, have the attitude described as much as philosophers. But why should one particular discipline be characterized by reference to an attitude instead of a subject matter?

Here is a "philosopher" who does not know the meaning of the term "wisdom" as used by the ancients.

One the first day of my first class in philosophy in 1959 as a college junior, the meaning of "philosophy" was explained in detail. We learned that "philosophy" was Greek for love of wisdom and that "philosophy" in ancient times signified a way of life dedicated to the pursuit of wisdom. The goal of the genuine philosopher was to become a sage rather than simply a purveyor of information about the material side of life.

Significantly, the two most influential philosopher-sages in the West have been Socrates and Jesus, neither of whom either was an academic nor did either of them write a word. But their influence is still pervasive, and Western culture is inconceivable without their seminal contributions to living the good life and attaining wisdom, which Socrates called "self-knowledge" and Jesus "the kingdom," through the core spirituality taught by the sages of perennial wisdom of all times and climes.

Actually, I agree with McGinn that academic philosophy should change its name to distinguish itself as emulating scientists rather than sages. The present approach to philosophy in academia dishonors the discipline and has relegated it to comparative irrelevance.

OK, maybe I am being too hard on Professor McGinn. His work demonstrates keen interest in the most important philosophical subjects of the day, including the philosophy of consciousness, which is the next frontier. But I stand by what I have written about the views stated above.

Read it at The New York Times
Philosophy by Another Name
By Colin McGinn | Professor and Cooper Fellow, University of Miami