Literary Lacunae
Julian sends me this meme: “What 5 books are you vaguely embarassed to admit you haven’t read?” Here goes:
(1) Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. I keep suspecting that my intuitions about markets and culture are closer to a Weberian sociologist than to those of an economist, which makes me feel like I should really read this book and find out.
(2)Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons. Some of the smartest people I know, such as Tyler and Julian, think this is a great work of philosophy. My former grad advisor Chris Morris gave me this helpful category: “Books I’ve read, but not by myself.” I’ve read so much secondary literature about Reasons and Persons that it seems like I’ve read it. I consider it among the books I’ve read, but just not by myself. But I suppose I should actually work my way through it.
(3)Carson McCullers, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. This is my beloved housemate’s favorite book (and number 17 on the Random House 100 best novels list) and I keep meaning to read it, but am ashamed to say, I cannot generate the motivation to do it.
(4) Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. I sincerely believe that this is the most important work of political philosophy in the English language. So I should probably get around to reading the whole thing one of these days. I’m pretty sure I’ve read the good parts, but who knows!?
(5) Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. This is truly shameful, but I’ve never actually gotten to Utopia. Again, I know what it says, but not because I’ve read what it says.
I pass the meme to Joanna Robinson, Tyler Cowen, and Alina Stefanescu.
May 22nd, 2005 15:12
“Clock Without Hands” is considerably shorter and very good also.
May 22nd, 2005 16:03
It’s sort of weird to ask, but can someone pass this on to me too?! Thanks!
Regarding Weber, it was a bit of a disapointment. It’s mostly about Protentantism and to a lesser degree about Economics. A good read and a valid perspective nevertheless. You don’t *need* it to discuss politics (social science or political philosophy)
I recently read and commented on Anarchy, State and Utopia. I think that the language is clear enough that secondary literature is good enough. While the language is clear and concise, I really likes the phrasing. I’d love to be able to write like that. Read this one for the style. The ideas are good too… if you’re into moral minarchism.
May 22nd, 2005 16:05
P.S. Most of my note on “Anarchy, State and Utopia” are in Romanian, so don’t waste your time looking through the archives. Sorry. Meanwhile I switched to English, but not soon enough.
May 22nd, 2005 16:55
Really, if you’ve never made it to Utopia, just skip to there. It’s much more cohesive and interesting than State, IMHO.
May 22nd, 2005 17:04
Sociology defines the study of human interactions as individuals and groups. Human interactions result from the monetary and non-monetary transactions in which we engage.
What is the study of sociology but the study of economics taught by ill-trained faculty? Why bother studying sociology when studying economics will lead to better job opportunities?
May 22nd, 2005 18:46
A quick response to Insiderman. I saw the comment and couldn’t abstain:
Sociology is relevant because it talks of the values that can’t be the basis for economic goods and services, such as respect. You can’t trade respect, or any other genuine emotion for that matter.
If you are to believe Mises, that all Economics is to be deduced from the a priori concept of human action, then what stops us from making the same fundamentalist-deductionist claim about all other fields related to human action, such as history? The Economics paradigm of marginal thinking is widely-applicable but by no mean the absolutely superior one.
May 23rd, 2005 07:54
Thank you for your comment, Gabriel. A historian once gave to me the definition of sociology as “excited ignorance in frantic search of the truth that never existed.” Clearly, sociology and history haven’t found the currency required to trade respect.
Even subconciously, we recognize the economic nature of respect. “How can I earn his respect.”
Historians and sociologists through their interactions are attempting to trade. Although the currency may not be monetary, disciplines attempt to trade as surely as you and I purchase gasoline. How does the economics department end up in the business school after starting out as a discipline called “political economy.”
Another great problem that sociology tries to solve is why people go to war. Behind every great war it seems there was a struggle for something tangible. In order to win over the hearts and minds of those actually doing battle, however, the politicians knew they must trade in a different currency. There are usually few mercenaries willing to die for money, but a great many people willing to die for their country or an idea.
If you find the right currency, you can effectuate a transaction. If you can effectuate a transaction, it can be described economically.
May 23rd, 2005 08:29
Okay… so I admit it’s pretty tempting to study Weberian sociology, too
I especially like the part about the transition from a traditional to a rational society and how they are applying his theories to radical Islam.
Maybe the meaning that people give to their actions, however, should be kept in the realm of behavioral psychology.
May 23rd, 2005 09:53
Much of _Leviathan_ is wonderful- witty, full of lasting insite, etc. If you can get through the last parts, “Of a Christian Commonwealth” and “Of the Kingdom of Darkness” you’ll be a rare bird indeed, even among political philosophers. If you do it, please report back for the rest of us. The Hackett edition, edited by Curley, is the best edition, I think. As for Nozick- maybe it’s better to Read Jo Wolff’s book on him. There are some books that, the smarter you get, the smarter it gets. Leviathan is like that, as is Theory of Justice. I don’t think ASU falls into that category- it’s much more just clever trick arguments. But, Wolff’s book does an excellent job of presenting the important parts clearly and in a way that retains some of Nozick’s sense of fun.
May 23rd, 2005 12:09
I’d be surprised to learn that there’s anyone alive today who’s actually read Leviathan all the way through to the end (it gets a little bizarre). Nevertheless, it’s unquestionably the most important work of political philosophy ever written.
May 24th, 2005 20:05
In lieu of Weber’s own work (or as a wonderful completement), Will, I suggest the textbook: Master’s of Sociological Thought:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1577663071/qid=1116979320/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-1798582-5443367?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
and it’s up real cheap used!
May 24th, 2005 23:43
I’ve read Leviathan all the way through, and goddam does it have a weird ending.
- Josh
July 7th, 2005 16:30
texas holdem free online
You may find it interesting to take a look at the sites dedicated to texas holdem cheat programs
March 3rd, 2007 05:30
Glad to hear it
June 27th, 2008 10:14
[...] as a staffer for Cato for a year after I graduated. (Also, Burke is one of those writers who, to borrow Will’s phrase, “I’ve read, but not by myself.”) But the broader point, I think, is right: [...]