tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post1210897799432415551..comments2024-03-28T08:37:58.136+01:00Comments on Limited, Inc.: scribble scribble scribble, mr. gathmanRoger Gathmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11257400843748041639noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-67547295027456590202008-02-27T19:39:00.000+01:002008-02-27T19:39:00.000+01:00"and if, in a pantomime that reverses such talk, f..."and if, in a pantomime that reverses such talk, freedom in the economic sphere is to let your senusal interest dictate without impediment..."<BR/><BR/>I'm reading Marshall's 'Principles' at the moment, and it's striking (if predictable) the extent to which his characterisation of economic man is driven by an eminent Victorian moralism. Basically (familiar theme): the poor are like animals, they lack higher feeling, and therefore they partly escape scientific characterisation - who knows what these dissolute and desperate folk will do?<BR/><BR/>Animality, in Marshall, isn't just a dedication to following your sensual interests; it's also irrationality in the way you follow those interests. So there's a higher hedonism and a lower hedonism - and the lower hedonism actually betrays hedonism because it isn't hedonistic enough. The poor don't know how to maximise pleasure because they lack moral fibre - they lack reason.<BR/><BR/>This could, I guess, be made part of a secularism story: as Darwinism conquered everything, and religion seemed to die, new ways had to be developed of maintaining the human/animal distinction. Perhaps the movement from the model of biology to the model of physics, in economics, is part of this? Biology maks us all animals; physics can describe an abstract space from which (a re-imagined) animality is excluded.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm very keen on this new beastly direction your happiness project's taking. That's what I meant to say. No more thoughts from me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com