Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Thu Jan 11 14:31:31 2007 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In his very recent review of Jerry Evensky's "Adam Smith's Moral
Philosophy: A Historical and Contemporary Perspective on Markets, Law,
Ethics, and Culture" Professor Fayazmanesh has some remarks that need to
be reasessed. For example he simply says that Evensky's 'notion of
"selection/evolution/limit" is, of course, the result of reading Adam
Smith after Charles Darwin'. It is well known that Darwin benefited from
Adam Smith, and it is also widely acknowledged that Smith together with
other members of the Scottish Enlightenment, and even Turgot, did
seminal progress with their fours stages theory, leading to Darwin.
Finally, and in my view more disturbing, is Professor Fayazmanesh's
apparently dismissive (but of course legitimate) comment that 'What
differentiates Evensky's work from previous ones? Generally speaking,
interpretations of Adam Smith's writings'. My question is what do some
historians of economic thought do, but interpreting, using Professor
Fayazmanesh's own wording 'archaic theory (ies) of history'?
Leonidas Montes
|
|
|