About The Author
I am an undergraduate at the Western University of Canada, in a mixed degree for Economics, Politics, & Philosophy. From there I intend to get an MBA, and then work in international business.
My current academic work involves interpreting economics through the lense of critical theory. I’m continually surprised at how productive this can be if applied well enough—particularly in identifying the limitations of economics as a methodology. My primary model is the Non-Philosophy of François Laruelle, which endeavors to develop a mode of thought having the same relation to philosophy as Non-Euclidean geometry to Euclidean geometry: I frame Sraffian economics as a ‘Non-Economics’ which can be used to identify the structure of economics as a discourse. At this point I remain mired in theory, but Sraffian economics is very promising in terms of real-life application, particularly in the theory of international trade, which for methodological reasons marginalist economics is unable to theorize.
Also, what draws me to (applied) theory is mainly that its intricate concepts and methodologies can be applied to otherwise dry subject matter in order to make it ‘sexy’. In other words, injecting boring topics (e.g. accounting, real estate) with theory helps me to take an interest in them, whereas typically I would not have had the motivation to investigate them on their own. It’s like cheating at life.
I try to avoid abstraction for the sake of abstraction, and in my endeavour to be rigorous I draw very much from philosophy of science, though mostly the more historical variety (Lakatos, Feyerabend, predictivism). In endeavoring to write accessibly, it becomes evident that ‘common sense’ is a historically constructed set of beliefs (e.g. the Aristotelian theory of catharsis), many of which are inaccurate, or lead to incomplete renderings of social phenomena. Hence, I realize that much of what I write may be unclear, and much may seem like I’m talking about simple ideas in overly complicated language. My TL;DR section at the bottom of each entry is intended to make these simple ideas explicit, while my actual entries are geared toward showing the ‘math’ behind each idea. As for actual mathematics, although I’m an adequate mathematician, I’m not as comfortable with it as I am with conceptual thought (though I have the utmost respect for mathematics), hence math will be kept to a minimum here.
I’m currently learning Mandarin, French, & Russian, and intend to provide translations to and from these languages once I become sufficiently advanced in them.
An interesting series of influences. Much luck on learning the Russian, however. It’s a difficult but worthwhile language.
Thanks for the encouragement. I ask myself on a somewhat regular basis, “Why oh why did I have to pick such a hellish language?”, so I’m actually quite glad to hear that. By the way, as a fluent speaker, have you noticed any Sapir-Whorffian nuances of thought that Russian allows and English doesn’t?
It’s funny, I was just thinking about you: last night I randomly came across your comment on a Circle Takes The Square interview here. I agree with you, of course; it appalls me how so many amazing artists are so poorly-spoken (especially CTTS, of all bands!). It’s precisely that disparity between the artist’s conscious & unconscious thought that I find fascinating, however.
I generally agree with the Kantian premise that the artist is unable to fully express the conceptual underpinnings of his work of art, and that his relationship to his own work is rather intuitive. The Modernist avant-garde was perhaps better equipped to make sense of their own work, since they developed such elaborate theoretical systems to explain their artistry. However, I’m really not a fan of Circle Takes the Square at all. I wrote up a joke review of As the Roots Undo in the style of a Spinozist geometrical proof. You can access it here: here.
I am vanquished.
At least allow me to minimize the damage by stating that music (and art in general) is not particularly important to me.
This is going on my list of awesome anecdotes.
In answer to your question about Russian, I can say that certain words carry a sort of metaphysical importance. There are catchalls, which come in handy in nearly every situation (“давай!”), but also words like the noun-form of быть, which signifies everyday life as well as a mode of being, a general state of existence in the world. There are also certain jokes which register only in a Soviet mentality, which are even more specific than Russian as a language. All the jokes revolving around things people heard “у армянского радио” are of this variety.
HEYY GRAHAM! Alex and I say hi(:
Hello. ^_^
This is a message from the future you…
Thesis Antithesis
/\
\/
Synthesis
Read Hegel before Marx, Marx before Foucault, and Foucault before Scott’s ‘Seeing Like a State’ (quite simply a brilliant book).
PS: Read ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence’–you have the mind for it.
PPS: Keep going, please. You’re walking a beautiful path.
Thanks CCA,
I’ve actually read Hegel’s Phenomenology (as well as some of his auxiliary texts), and the only reason I haven’t begun to peruse Marx closely is that I want to finish Ricardo first, who influenced Marx’s economic thought considerably. As for Foucault, I’ve been put off reading him until I go through Heidegger, since on his deathbed Foucault admitted that the philosopher who had influenced him most was, in fact, Heidegger. (Interestingly, however, he had a book by Spinoza on his bedside table.) I’ve drawn numerous flowcharts for who influenced whom, and have resigned myself to a semi-chronological trek through intellectual history.
I have heard of Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but what I heard made it sound like yet another example of nebulous humanism of the ‘inspirational’ variety, but you seem discerning enough that I’ll give it a try sometime. As well, I’ve read an excerpt from Scott, and was particularly impressed by his use of beekeeping as a metaphor for the simplification performed by states; I’ll keep it in mind.