----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Piggly Whigglish 
 
Mike, perhaps it is once again time to raise the question of whether a 
history of economic thought is possible if it does not make some judgment 
about the nature of economics. Judgments about which texts to choose and 
which material to cover must be made on some basis. One cannot escape this 
by deferring to tradition; for tradition itself implies a set of judgments, 
at least implicitly. 
 
I have no doubt that Professor Samuels presented a "well-balanced" and 
stimulating course. However, one should not infer from this that his 
choices did not reflect his own particular set of judgments. 
 
Beyond this, if we grant that a set of judgments must be made -- i.e., that 
all history of thought is whiggish -- then shouldn't the whole idea of 
whiggish history be regarded as a greasy, slippery way of concealling one's 
own views of the judgments made by others? 
 
Pat Gunning 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]