A great measure of the disparity between philosophies, especially within the realm of economics and other social sciences, can be attributed to the agreement between the way the world organically operates and the way it might otherwise ideally or hypothetically operate per the proposed model.
In truth, such a contrast is born out of the impassioned philosopher’s demand for a world which is better than the one in which we actually, even regrettably, live.
In this particular case, the perseverant philosopher has journeyed beyond the purview of logic and reason to the realm of fiction and wishful thinking, which proves risky by imbuing the unwitting and impressionable public with pretense hinged to hypotheticals which operate to the tune of tantalizing fantasy rather than to the immutable cadence of reality.
The lazy philosopher, then, works not in search of truth, which proves reliably elusive, but rather to affirm his model and to squeeze data into it despite any apparent disagreement, awkwardly squinting his eyes and hastily adjusting his lenses whenever something appears to go awry.
He is, then, far less interested in modifying his existing disposition than in forming his reality around it.
As it turns out, there is plainly too much risk in jeopardizing the life’s work and reputation to become openminded to fresh discoveries, insightful revelations, conflicting evidence or revolutionary findings of any kind.
Too much hangs in the balance.
From heliocentric to geocentric models of the universe to prehistoric religions and historical healing practices, the academic world is rife with theories which once caught the world on fire, only to be later extinguished by more fashionable or convincing theories.
In many cases, logic has prevailed.
In still others, as the reader shall see, the world has been duped.
Ironically, renowned sophist John Maynard Keynes supported this claim in his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, published in 1936:
"The classical theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently parallel often meet, rebuke the lines for not keeping straight. Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work out a non-Euclidean geometry."
As Henry Hazlitt wrote conclusively in 1959, however, in his scathing critique entitled The Failure of the "New Economics":
"It is precisely Keynes... who starts rebuking the real world for not acting according to his theories — as when he contends, for example, against all experience under free economies, that wage-rates 'ought' to go up or down or adjust themselves to "the price level" uniformly and simultaneously or not at all."
It appears most evident that the wild goose chase toward truth may bear a flatus of fruit for every gaggle of canards along the way.
It is, thus, the burden of the individual to navigate the haze to follow his own beacon, to trust and refine his own sense of direction, and to remain always skeptical.
For the failings of philosophy are found most commonly between the lines, beyond the pages, and outside the convention.
Dare to be free and independent.
In truth, such a contrast is born out of the impassioned philosopher’s demand for a world which is better than the one in which we actually, even regrettably, live.
In this particular case, the perseverant philosopher has journeyed beyond the purview of logic and reason to the realm of fiction and wishful thinking, which proves risky by imbuing the unwitting and impressionable public with pretense hinged to hypotheticals which operate to the tune of tantalizing fantasy rather than to the immutable cadence of reality.
The lazy philosopher, then, works not in search of truth, which proves reliably elusive, but rather to affirm his model and to squeeze data into it despite any apparent disagreement, awkwardly squinting his eyes and hastily adjusting his lenses whenever something appears to go awry.
He is, then, far less interested in modifying his existing disposition than in forming his reality around it.
As it turns out, there is plainly too much risk in jeopardizing the life’s work and reputation to become openminded to fresh discoveries, insightful revelations, conflicting evidence or revolutionary findings of any kind.
Too much hangs in the balance.
From heliocentric to geocentric models of the universe to prehistoric religions and historical healing practices, the academic world is rife with theories which once caught the world on fire, only to be later extinguished by more fashionable or convincing theories.
In many cases, logic has prevailed.
In still others, as the reader shall see, the world has been duped.
Ironically, renowned sophist John Maynard Keynes supported this claim in his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, published in 1936:
"The classical theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently parallel often meet, rebuke the lines for not keeping straight. Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work out a non-Euclidean geometry."
As Henry Hazlitt wrote conclusively in 1959, however, in his scathing critique entitled The Failure of the "New Economics":
"It is precisely Keynes... who starts rebuking the real world for not acting according to his theories — as when he contends, for example, against all experience under free economies, that wage-rates 'ought' to go up or down or adjust themselves to "the price level" uniformly and simultaneously or not at all."
It appears most evident that the wild goose chase toward truth may bear a flatus of fruit for every gaggle of canards along the way.
It is, thus, the burden of the individual to navigate the haze to follow his own beacon, to trust and refine his own sense of direction, and to remain always skeptical.
For the failings of philosophy are found most commonly between the lines, beyond the pages, and outside the convention.
Dare to be free and independent.
Comments
Post a Comment