Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon Dec 11 14:06:30 2006 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> must I have read *every word* ever written by
someone
> before I can express an opinion on his work? Or is
> that enough? must I be able to
> instantly recollect edition and page number - and
> library box and reference number?
> To ask him to desist from discussing Mises, simply
> because he modestly
> acknowledges his imperfect knowledge of Mises, is to
> ask all of us to
> desist from discussing everything.
>
> Prabhu Guptara
This is a strawman argument. Without a photographic
memory no scholar can meet this standard of 'instant
recollection' of 'every page number' in 'every
edition'. Virtually every scholar of Mises, Smith,
Keynes, Marx, or anyone else has imperfect knowledge.
What is at issue here is the tendency of some to bash
scholars about whom they know very little. I have
heard some scholars bash Mises and Hayek in ways that
make absolutely no sense. For example, at the HES last
summer someone mirespresented Hayek by claiming that
the Road to Serfdom argued that any small step towards
intervention would lead to a Hitlerean society. I
confronted this person afterwards, and he admitted
that he really did not know much about the RTS.
I am sure that others have bashed Marx, Keynes, and
Veblen without really undertanding them. Personally, I
avoid criticizing Marx precisely because I know
relatively little about his system.
One need not acquire superhuman knowledge of Mises to
comment on his system. Problems do arise when someone
attacks the work of Mises (or any other famous
scholar) with only a superficial or biased knowledge
of his work.
DW MacKenzie
|
|
|