In a recent discussion on Leiter's blog, In response to remarks by our very own Catarina, Brian Weatherson writes (first quoting Keynes): "But apart from this contemporary mood, 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 influences, 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." (Keynes 1936, 383-4)
[Weatherson continues:] "I hope philosophers' intuitions are better than the voices in the head of madmen in authority, but the point Keynes is making generalises. And that is a good reason to trace where contemporary philosophy comes from. Having said that, I suspect the time period that would be most useful to study for this purpose would be the Wittgenstein-Kripke period. Since philosophers' intuitions seemed so different in 1973 to 1953, finding out what changed would be beneficial. But there isn't a huge amount written on the *history* of that period."
Weatherson starts his comment with a reference to an economist. So, let me end mine: David M. Levy called my attention to the Lemmon paper because he and I have been discussing the non trivial modal assumptions presupposed by economics (recall my discussion of modal economics here, here, here, and here). Maybe pursuing Weatherson's question can lead to revival in the shared history of economics and philosophy?
Recent Comments