评凯恩斯论不确定性的程度:评论文章《凯恩斯论不确定性与悲剧性幸福:复杂性与期望》,作者:Anna m. carabelli

Q3 Social Sciences
J Gay Meeks
{"title":"评凯恩斯论不确定性的程度:评论文章《凯恩斯论不确定性与悲剧性幸福:复杂性与期望》,作者:Anna m. carabelli","authors":"J Gay Meeks","doi":"10.1093/cpe/bzad019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Oscar Wilde suggests that a book on which critics are agreed must be a ‘very obvious and shallow production’. This review article on Anna Carabelli’s 2021 book (a volume which helpfully draws together the fruits of her more than forty years’ research into Keynes’s method and ways of thought) involves five books that seem to invite the critical dissent that Wilde would have applauded. In her book, Carabelli displays her customary scholarship in writing about Keynes himself but is briskly dismissive of almost all commentators on his treatment of uncertainty and method. In what may be termed a fourth degree of comment - commenting on her comments on others’ comments on Keynes - I take issue with some of her attacks, especially over the extent to which Keynes regarded convention as a stabilising factor and over whether Keynes is misinterpreted by ‘followers of Hume’. A puzzle Carabelli seems to miss concerns which Hume is leading these ‘followers’ – in terms of current controversy, the ‘old’, the ‘new’ or perhaps yet another Hume. The nature of Hume’s own response to his famous sceptical challenge to inductive reasoning is in dispute, and it is contentious which of his two major works better shows this. Also subject to fierce debate is the relation of the philosophy in Keynes’s 1921 Treatise on Probability to the economics in his 1936 General Theory. Carabelli’s detailed history of thought perspective on how Keynes’s ideas grew encounters both rival historical slants and comment from a more purely analytical angle.","PeriodicalId":38730,"journal":{"name":"Contributions to Political Economy","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DEGREES OF COMMENT ON KEYNES ON UNCERTAINTY: REVIEW ARTICLE ON <i>KEYNES ON UNCERTAINTY AND TRAGIC HAPPINESS: COMPLEXITY AND EXPECTATIONS</i> BY ANNA M. CARABELLI\",\"authors\":\"J Gay Meeks\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cpe/bzad019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Oscar Wilde suggests that a book on which critics are agreed must be a ‘very obvious and shallow production’. This review article on Anna Carabelli’s 2021 book (a volume which helpfully draws together the fruits of her more than forty years’ research into Keynes’s method and ways of thought) involves five books that seem to invite the critical dissent that Wilde would have applauded. In her book, Carabelli displays her customary scholarship in writing about Keynes himself but is briskly dismissive of almost all commentators on his treatment of uncertainty and method. In what may be termed a fourth degree of comment - commenting on her comments on others’ comments on Keynes - I take issue with some of her attacks, especially over the extent to which Keynes regarded convention as a stabilising factor and over whether Keynes is misinterpreted by ‘followers of Hume’. A puzzle Carabelli seems to miss concerns which Hume is leading these ‘followers’ – in terms of current controversy, the ‘old’, the ‘new’ or perhaps yet another Hume. The nature of Hume’s own response to his famous sceptical challenge to inductive reasoning is in dispute, and it is contentious which of his two major works better shows this. Also subject to fierce debate is the relation of the philosophy in Keynes’s 1921 Treatise on Probability to the economics in his 1936 General Theory. Carabelli’s detailed history of thought perspective on how Keynes’s ideas grew encounters both rival historical slants and comment from a more purely analytical angle.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contributions to Political Economy\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contributions to Political Economy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cpe/bzad019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contributions to Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cpe/bzad019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

奥斯卡·王尔德认为,评论界意见一致的书必须是“非常明显和肤浅的作品”。这篇评论安娜·卡拉贝利(Anna Carabelli) 2021年出版的书(这本书很有帮助地汇集了她四十多年来对凯恩斯的方法和思维方式的研究成果)的文章涉及五本书,这些书似乎招致了王尔德会称赞的批评异议。在她的书中,卡拉贝利展示了她在写凯恩斯本人时一贯的学识,但对几乎所有评论他对不确定性的处理和方法不屑一顾。在可能被称为第四度的评论中——评论她对其他人对凯恩斯的评论——我对她的一些攻击提出了质疑,尤其是在凯恩斯认为传统是一个稳定因素的程度上,以及凯恩斯是否被“休谟的追随者”误解了。卡拉贝利似乎忽略了一个问题,那就是休谟究竟在领导着这些“追随者”——就目前的争议而言,是“旧的”、“新的”还是另一个休谟。休谟对他著名的对归纳推理的怀疑主义挑战的回应的性质存在争议,他的两部主要作品中哪一部更能说明这一点,这是有争议的。凯恩斯1921年的《概率论》中的哲学与1936年的《通论》中的经济学之间的关系也受到了激烈的争论。Carabelli详细的思想史观点是关于凯恩斯的思想是如何发展的,这既遇到了对立的历史观点,也遇到了更纯粹的分析角度的评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
DEGREES OF COMMENT ON KEYNES ON UNCERTAINTY: REVIEW ARTICLE ON KEYNES ON UNCERTAINTY AND TRAGIC HAPPINESS: COMPLEXITY AND EXPECTATIONS BY ANNA M. CARABELLI
Abstract Oscar Wilde suggests that a book on which critics are agreed must be a ‘very obvious and shallow production’. This review article on Anna Carabelli’s 2021 book (a volume which helpfully draws together the fruits of her more than forty years’ research into Keynes’s method and ways of thought) involves five books that seem to invite the critical dissent that Wilde would have applauded. In her book, Carabelli displays her customary scholarship in writing about Keynes himself but is briskly dismissive of almost all commentators on his treatment of uncertainty and method. In what may be termed a fourth degree of comment - commenting on her comments on others’ comments on Keynes - I take issue with some of her attacks, especially over the extent to which Keynes regarded convention as a stabilising factor and over whether Keynes is misinterpreted by ‘followers of Hume’. A puzzle Carabelli seems to miss concerns which Hume is leading these ‘followers’ – in terms of current controversy, the ‘old’, the ‘new’ or perhaps yet another Hume. The nature of Hume’s own response to his famous sceptical challenge to inductive reasoning is in dispute, and it is contentious which of his two major works better shows this. Also subject to fierce debate is the relation of the philosophy in Keynes’s 1921 Treatise on Probability to the economics in his 1936 General Theory. Carabelli’s detailed history of thought perspective on how Keynes’s ideas grew encounters both rival historical slants and comment from a more purely analytical angle.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contributions to Political Economy
Contributions to Political Economy Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Contributions to Political Economy provides a forum for the academic discussion of original ideas and arguments drawn from important critical traditions in economic analysis. Articles fall broadly within the lines of thought associated with the work of the Classical political economists, Marx, Keynes, and Sraffa. While the majority of articles are theoretical and historical in emphasis, the journal welcomes articles of a more applied character. It also reviews noteworthy books recently published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信