David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In a recent paper (Denis, 2004b) I argued that the neoclassical use of the concept of equilibrium was guilty of a hypostatisation: an equilibrium which is only an abstraction and extrapolation, the logical terminus of a component process taken in isolation, is extracted and one-sidedly substituted for the whole. The temporary is made permanent, and process subordinated to stasis, with clearly apologetic results. I concluded by suggesting that this hypostatisation exemplified the contrast between formal and dialectical modes of thought, and that it may be in the application of a dialectical notion of equilibrium that the heterodoxy can make its most telling contribution. This paper develops the line of thought that, while heterodox currents may superficially appear as divided amongst themselves as they are from the orthodoxy, there is truly something profound uniting the apparently disparate heterodox trends: the adoption of a dialectical method. I draw on the work of Sciabarra (1995, 2000), who argues that making process primary, which we might expect of Austrian economists, is the essence of dialectics, which we might (wrongly, in his view) identify with Marxism. If this view is, as I believe, fundamentally correct, perhaps (a) we can only understand the method of neoclassical economics by contrasting it with a dialectical approach, and (b) we can explore the potential for common ground between the various heterodox currents by examining their attitude, both implicit and explicit, to dialectics.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Bertell Ollman (2008). Why Dialectics? : Why Now? In Bertell Ollman & Tony Smith (eds.), Dialectics for the New Century. Palgrave Macmillan. 338 - 357.
David L. Prychitko (1993). Formalism in Austrian‐School Welfare Economics: Another Pretense of Knowledge? Critical Review 7 (4):567-592.
Barry Smith (1990). On the Austrianness of Austrian Economics. Critical Review 4 (1-2):212-238.
Bertell Ollman & Tony Smith (eds.) (2008). Dialectics for the New Century. Palgrave Macmillan.
Roger E. Backhouse (2004). History and Equilibrium: A Partial Defense of Equilibrium Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 11 (3):291-305.
Paul Davidson (1989). The Economics of Ignorance or Ignorance of Economics? Critical Review 3 (3-4):467-487.
Andy Denis (2007). The Hypostatisation of the Concept of Equilibrium in Neoclassical Economics. In Valeria Mosini (ed.), Equilibrium in Economics: Scope and Limits.
Andy Denis (2008). Dialectics and the Austrian School? The Search for Common Ground in the Methodology of Heterodox Economics. Journal of Philosophical Economics 1 (2):151-173.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #173,007 of 1,102,993 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #297,567 of 1,102,993 )
How can I increase my downloads?