Posted by: lettrist on: April 11, 2009
I am new to WordPress. But already I like the tag feature that allows you to see all the other WordPress blogs tagged with the same things as yours. I like seeing who else writes about ‘anarchism’, ‘postmodernism’, ‘Lyotard’, ‘John Stuart Mill’, and whatever else I am interested in.
One thing I noticed is that there [...]
Posted by: lettrist on: January 4, 2007
He actually does have a politics. He refutes equality famously. And he also refutes capitalism, which is quite different from his refutation of God. Which is that, if there were gods, how could he bear not to be one. And yet, when all of Nietzsche’s insights are documented, this is not of course where [...]
Posted by: lettrist on: October 15, 2006
I have been reading much transhumanism lately, as is evident from my blogs. So I began to reflect on the nature of technology in capitalist economies.
Keynes argued that prices in the economy were “sticky” in the sense that they very easily moved upward and very stubbornly moved downward. Petrol prices is the example a popular [...]
Posted by: lettrist on: May 5, 2006
Kant and Mill represent to us two opposites of ethical thought. The discovery of any common ground between them which might form the basis of a relationship may appear a hopeless task. Kant says that a good will is not good because of what it performs or effects, but simply by virtue of the volition, [...]
Posted by: lettrist on: April 15, 2006
The concept connected by Kant with the phrase “categorical imperative” seems easy to explain. It means a law valid for the will of every rational being and therefore valid unconditionally. This is in no need of interpretation: it can hardly be misinterpreted. Kant has stated in the clearest and most intelligible terms. Understanding becomes [...]
Posted by: lettrist on: April 11, 2006
Adam Smith’s model of economic growth remained an influential model throughout classical economics. While Smith alluded to a period of zero economic growth—which was seen as an historical inevitability of economic growth even to non-Marxists of the classical period—it was Ricardo and Mill who expounded the analytical arguments for this so-called “stationary state.” I will argue that Ricardo’s portrait of the stationary state is a dismal and gloomy one, whereas John Stuart Mill’s “happy-face” portrait of the long-run economy is a splendid society.
Recent Comments