I just want to add a note of clarification to the conversation on Paul
Heyne. The Waterman/Brennan introduction is quite good; the only thing I
want to add is a word about the Divinity program. As one due to graduate in
June from the same program at the Univ. Chicago Divinity School as Heyne (it
was called "Religion and Society" in his day and "Religious Ethics" in
mine), the program is not a 'theological' program in any sort of dogmatic
sense. It is a program that urges people concerned with religion (broadly
understood) to also engage social science methodologies to understand and
critique social structures (one of the best examples of this from Heyne's
day would have been a book by one of his professors, Gibson Winter, titled
"Elements for a Social Ethic: The Role of Social Science in Public Policy").
Heyne did this work with economics better than any of our other graduates,
but throughout his career he continued to talk about the relationship
between Christianity and economics. While he didn't think the two were
directly connected as Waterman notes, he did critique economic models and
capitalist structures from a Christian perspective at times (though he
didn't always use religious terms) when he worried about the erosion of
community in capitalist societies. It's a minor point, but I don't read
Heyne as having run away from his doctoral training -- I think he took it in
a new direction.
Joe Blosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 12:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] FW: [SHOE] application for an assistant professor
position-Milan (Italy)--Paul Heyne
I don't think I know Paul Heyne's work well enough to comment on whether or
not he could be classified as a philosopher. A.M.C. Waterman is certainly
much more qualified than I to opine on that. However, Waterman's recent
posting to SHOE on Heyne does in my opinion omit one important detail. This
is that Heyne's 1963 doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago was
completed in the Divinity School NOT the department of Economics. The title
of Heyne's dissertation is "The Presuppositions of Economic Thought: A Study
in the Philosophical and Theological Sources of Economic Controversy." In
his introduction, Heyne indicates that he views his thesis as a "study in
Economics, Philosophy, and Theology."
David Mitch
> My dear and intimate friend, the late Paul Heyne, was not a
> philosopher and had no pretension whatsoever in that direction.
> (Indeed one might well say, he had no pretensions of any kind.) He was
> thoroughly trained as a Lutheran ordinand at St Louis, took an MA in
> economics at a local university, and proceeded to Chicago for his
> doctorate. His entire professional career was spent in departments of
> economics. But he had no 'research interests in economics' and quite
> deliberately -- almost ostentatiously -- eschewed 'research', which he
> regarded as a mere academic game. He regarded himself, and was
> regarded, as a teacher. A convenient summary of his life and work may
> be found in the Introduction to the volume of his essays edited by
Geoffrey Brennan and myself:
> '"Are Economists Basically Immoral?" and Other Essays on Economics,
> Ethics and Religion, edited and with an Introduction by Geoffrey
> Brennan and A. M. C. Waterman'. Indianapolis: LIberty Fund, 2008.
>
> A. M. C. Waterman
>
>
>
> On 27/02/2011 5:19 PM, Samuel Bostaph wrote:
>> Two other philosophers whose research interests are in economics are
>> Jim Otteson at Yeshiva University and Paul Heyne (unfortunately
>> deceased) at the University of Washington.
>>
>> Samuel Bostaph, Ph.D.
>> Champaign, Illinois
>>
>> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
>> themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."--Winston
>> Churchill
>>
>> --- On *Sun, 2/27/11, Eric Schliesser /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Eric Schliesser <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [SHOE] FW: [SHOE] application for an assistant
>> professor position-Milan (Italy)
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 10:12 AM
>>
>> I have advocated in print (one may recall my 2008 JHET article)
>> that history of economics may find a home within philosophy
>> departments (especially because there is a lot of shared history
>> between philosophy and economics).
>> But there is no doubt that there are very few professional
>> philosophers in the English speaking world who also work in
>> history of economics. Here are a few names that spring to mind
>> (with affiliation and major research area):
>> Erik Angner (Alabama) Hayek; Jordi Cat (Indiana) Neurath; Thomas
>> Uebel (Manchester) Neurath; Margaret Schabas (UBC) Hume/Smith;
>> Stephen Turner (USF) Max Weber/Parsons are among the few who keep
>> returning to history of economics. (Of course, there are quite a
>> few Adam Smith & Mill scholars within philosophy, but most of
>> these are really not so interested in economics.)
>> Kevin Hoover can also be included in this list.
>> Brian Weatherson (Rutgers--one of the top ranked department in
>> the world) was briefly interested in Keynes/Ramsey.
>> In Europe David Teirra (Madrid) Chicago; Jack Vromen (Rotterdam)
>> evolutionary economics; Uskali maki (Friedman's methodology essay)
>> can also be included.
>> No doubt we can add a few more. But I agree with Alain that for
>> the time being this is not a very promising survival strategy.
>> Eric
>> BOF Research Professor, Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent
>> University, Blandijnberg 2, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium. Phone:
>> (31)-(0)6-15005958
>> http://www.newappsblog.com/
>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=649484
>> http://philpapers.org/autosense.pl?searchStr=Eric%20Schliesser
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Alain Alcouffe <[log in to unmask]>
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Sent:* Sat, February 26, 2011 5:47:16 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [SHOE] FW: [SHOE] application for an assistant
>> professor position-Milan (Italy)
>>
>> Le 25/02/2011 17:28, Womack, John a écrit :
>>> I think the best revenge may be to join or create a department
>>> or program of the history of sciences, to work alongside historians
>>> of chemistry, biology, physics, etc., who now try to understand
>>> historically why very smart "scientists" in the past so often got
>>> matters in their disciplines so stupidly, disastrously wrong.
>>
>> Revenge ? Really?
>> The same kind of situation exists in France and history of
>> economics is also downgraded and/or excluded from curriculums,
>> hence positions for historian of economics are becoming fewer
>> and fewer. But if we consider the number of positions for
>> historians of sciences (aactualy the category encompasses
>> epistemology, history of sciences and techniques), there are only
>> 76 while positions for economists are around 1900. That's why I am
>> convinced that the future of history of economics depends upon
>> safeguarding positions in economics.
>>
>>
>
>
|
