The opening paragraph of this column has to be the shallowest explanation of what Socrates was about that I have ever read. (I also assume that the word end in the headline means end as goal not end as bringing the curtain down.) Were Brooks at all familiar with phenomenology he would not be surprised to discover that, for thinking subjects, observation and evaluation are conjunct. One thought that occurred to me while reading this is how much Adam Smith's notion of the invisible hand and Darwin's of natural selection have in common. Of course, economic natural selection seems often to offend many of those who embrace the biological version. This would probably include David Brooks.
That's one of those zap-zoinkz-zonkzervations of yours that brings entire cosmologies into focus, the one concerning Smith and Darwin.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'd like to see, please, is for you to explain it fully to me because I'm not sure I understand the deep-structure import of what you're saying (despite the fact I am sure you're abso-truliously on the <*ahem*> money and mindset).
IOW, I think I'm challenged in this regard: One potato, two potato, three potato, for Catholic me me me. TIA.
Both, Judith, are saying that if you have enough free agents at work at any given time in a particular area a certain statistical trend regarding success or failure will manifest itself. (Prosperity, after all, is an almost exact counterpart to survival.)
ReplyDeleteThat's what I thought you meant and it is exactly right. Thank you. A lot of peeps blame Ricardo, Adams, and Smith for whatever it is that's so wrong with our world, now. I think it's more the old theory about busts happening every 55 years, at least in terms of economics. In terms of the other kinds of busts, well, you'd have to ask someone else :).
ReplyDelete