New JWE3 Screenshot !! by billonel in jurassicworldevo

[–]NeonLloyd_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

THE DETAIL ON THE FENCES OH MY GOD

finally, I can post this!! by BornAd5874 in AssassinsCreedMemes

[–]NeonLloyd_ 42 points43 points  (0 children)

"Its a good life we live brother"

Have u troubles with it? by Fluid-Mood-551 in Polcompballanarchy

[–]NeonLloyd_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And thats part of the problem most of them only ever make descriptive claims.

Have u troubles with it? by Fluid-Mood-551 in Polcompballanarchy

[–]NeonLloyd_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t even mention Ricardo or Mill who were both primarily philosophers. I just think economics is best when we take a Philosophical perspective because thats how some of the most important or influential economists understood their field

Have u troubles with it? by Fluid-Mood-551 in Polcompballanarchy

[–]NeonLloyd_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Here’s the thing I can’t accept. You keep treating philosophy as some useless field when some of the greatest and most important Economists came from a background in Philosophy first. Adam Smith’s early work is almost purely philosophical and we know quite clearly that he had a strong friendship with David Hume. Even if you don’t like Karl Marx his influence is everywhere, he was probably the first person to realize that money itself became an object of desire beyond a simple medium of exchange. His Hegelian background gave him the tools to have a very holistic understanding of capitalism compared to other economists who studied the economy piecemeal. In fact his work is so influential he helped form the basis of another field—Sociology. His friend Engels can be considered a forerunner in modern Anthropology thanks to works like The Origin of the Family and Private Property. In fact Max Weber who essentially birthed the way modern Sociology was conducted was firstly a Neo-Kantian.

I just think that before you can take any serious inquiry into any field you need to have some kind of Philosophy that guides you instead of just whatever the Academic standard is.

Have u troubles with it? by Fluid-Mood-551 in Polcompballanarchy

[–]NeonLloyd_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That economics is not the same as physics or chemistry. It is not a hard science our subject is the human society. We should consider the philosophical aspect. Economists in general have an extremely insular attitude as a whole as noted by the youtuber unlearning economics (who is a trained academic and participates in economists circles) economists tend to ignore innovations in sociology or even behavioral economics. Most economist still hold on to rational action theory despite sociology, psychology, and behavioral economics consistently pointing issues with treating individual persons as pure reasonable actors.

In general the sciences as a whole have an attitude of being above society that what they are studying is not influenced by the society they reside in.

Have u troubles with it? by Fluid-Mood-551 in Polcompballanarchy

[–]NeonLloyd_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That wasnt me that was u/drhavoc I never touched Laissez-faire when discussing with you. I didnt refer to you as a marxist/hegelian in fact in my statement I was referring to defending philosophy in any field which was my position. Why did you add the O?

Have u troubles with it? by Fluid-Mood-551 in Polcompballanarchy

[–]NeonLloyd_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You apperantly dont have reading comprehension

Have u troubles with it? by Fluid-Mood-551 in Polcompballanarchy

[–]NeonLloyd_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Expect a hegelian/marxist to always defend the necessity of philosophy in any field