----------------- HES POSTING -----------------
In response to Tiziano Raffaelli:
Tony Brewer and Tiziano Raffaelli have both done a great service by reminding us of the
richness of the expositions made by Smith and Marx. These great authors used their giant
intllectual abilities to grasp deep, far and wide. It is our good fortune that we are not
led narrowly by them.
Since I tend to be among <those interpreters who insist on the key role of self-interest>
and perhaps even among <more recent interpreters who point out the role of moral values
and benevolence>, I would humbly submit a rationalization of the <interpretation>, which
tends to leave out much of the richness of the original expositions.
The interpreter's bad luck and a source of some pride (and sometimes even some pay!) is
that he does not speak in the original language, but interprets in some other language. It
may be highly conditioned by the interpreter's own perception of the new audience, and
certainly by the interpreter's own style and vocabulary of presentation. Thus as an
interpreter, I may speak [for] Smith or Marx, but not [as] Smith or Marx. I am unable not
to interpret, which may both add and subtract meaning of the original. Thus, an
interpreter may subtract the richness, but add sharpness.
If we are talking to modern students already accustomed to mathematical precision and
analytical sharpness, I can hardly keep them listening to my presentation of Smith or Marx
if I do not spek in the modern language. This may force me to focus on the sharp features
of the analysis based on the pursuit of self-interest. If necessary, I would be able to
put a mathematical garb on his. My aim still remains a faithful representation, but it
cannot be a simple photocopy of the original. I can convey the meaning, but not the words.
And as an interpreter, I am never free from the risk of being accused of perversion,
because my own predicament may lie in riding on the shoulders of giants. I may try to get
an endorsement of the giants in my own feeble output. This would be a danger inherent in
the business of interpreting. This is not permissible, but this may occur.
The biggest risk for the interpreter is not to know where he is becoming a pervert. The
reconstruction of meaning is a trecherous job.
If I could, I would sharply define economics as the study of the market where self-
interest prevails, and political science as the study of the state where
benevolence/altruism/fellow feeling prevails, and anthropology as the study of cultures
where moral values prevail. Betterment in economics, domineering in politics and
admiration in anthropology would be three sharp things, rather than indistinct elements in
a rich package of three-in-one.
I would still deal with the same individual who pursues self-interest when he deals with
strangers in market, but shows his self-sacrificing identity to protect his
family/community/nation, and may privately seek the admiration of someone by cultivating
some kind of attractive virtue (say by singing/dancing/storytelling/cooking etc).
And some like me may want sharpness over richness.
Now, I am already poor, with no richness. Should I get sharp beating for refusing to be
rich?
Respectfully
Mohammad Gani
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
