海角大神

Or at least all students of Descartes works. My situation:

I am trying to write a review of Vernon Smith鈥檚 Rationality in Economics. (No easy task: I think I鈥檓 going to have to read a book on auctions in the process.) In any case, I came across him quoting Hayek saying: 鈥淒escartes contended that all the useful human institutions were and ought to be deliberate creation(s) of conscious reason鈥︹�� (p. 26). This is sourced to Hayek (1967: 85). And there, indeed, Hayek says that 鈥� but with no reference to where Descartes claimed this. Now, I happened to be researching The Discourse on Method recently, and I said:

鈥淒escartes was cautious enough to add caveats to his programme, such as declaring, for instance, 鈥楾hus my purpose here is not to teach the method that everyone ought to follow in order to conduct his reason correctly, but merely to show how I have tried to conduct mine鈥� (1993: 2). But Descartes鈥檚 modesty here was not embraced by his epigones; as Oakeshott put it, 鈥榯he Rationalist character may be seen springing from the exaggeration of Bacon鈥檚 hopes and the neglect of the scepticism of Descartes: modern Rationalism is what commonplace minds made out of the inspiration of men of discrimination and genius鈥� (1991 [1962]: 22).鈥�

Descartes later adds: 鈥淭hat is why I could in no way approve those cloudy and unquiet spirits who, being called neither by birth nor fortune to the handling of public affairs, are forever reforming the State in imagination; and, if I thought that there was the least thing in what I have written to bring me under suspicion of such folly, I should deeply regret its publication.鈥�

So here, far from holding his rationalist techniques should always be applied to social institutions, Descartes seems to warn us that they have no place there at all! (He also gives further arguments to this effect, as I recall.)

But, there are wheels within wheels! When I looked at the Hayek quote in its context more carefully (at first I just looked for a reference) it became apparent that Smith chopped the Hayek quote in an odd place while extracting it 鈥� what Hayek says is that 鈥渢he new rationalism of Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes and particularly Ren茅 Descartes contended that all the useful human institutions were and ought to be deliberate creation of conscious reason鈥︹�� So while in Smith鈥檚 version it is 鈥渃lear鈥� that Hayek attributes the social constructivist view to Descartes, in the original it is attributed to Cartesian rationalism, and perhaps not Descartes personally.

So, did Descartes ever say anything suggesting the view Smith assigns to him? And did Hayek mean to assign that view to Descartes, or was it only Smith鈥檚 editing that did so?

In any case, I鈥檓 hoping someone else has read Descartes鈥� entire collected works, so I don鈥檛 have to do that as well to finish my review!

SPECIAL BONUS FOR THINK MARKETS READERS: Much of the above was cross-posted at Crash Landing. But here is the bonus quiz for TM readers: In the same work, Hayek writes: 鈥渟o far as economics is concerned, in England鈥� a list of her great economists, if we leave out only two major figures, might readily be taken for a list of her great philosophers鈥︹��

So, without looking at the list that follows, who do you think Hayek would choose to leave out as being great English economists but not great English philosophers?

------------------------------

海角大神 has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.