4 ms·
Definitely, and I'm sure many do. And it is often very surprising how far ahead the older authors had thought. But while such reading is fun as a leisure activi
by yomritoyj 10y ago
Definitely, and I'm sure many do. And it is often very surprising how far ahead the older authors had thought. But while such reading is fun as a leisure activity, doing it seriously requires full-time dedication as a historian of thought because often even if the words are intelligible the concepts have drifted so much that they can be understood only by studying not only the famous works but their entire intellectual milieu. For example, to someone trained in contemporary economics even Keynes' 'General Theory' written in 1936 is very hard to make detailed sense of. So as a practical matter it comes down to a choice of studying either economics or the history of economics.
- marmot777 10y agoYes, I agree a philosophy scholar would do that but what about economists? And is it leisure for economists to read even a few of the classics or is it work related? It could be both I suppose or maybe anything's leisure that doesn't move the ball forward on the current project they're working on. Fair enough if that's the case. BTW, is a quant a practitioner of applied economics? I do know the trading related work they do at least the popular perception of of the work they do.
- marmot777 10y agoBTW, i get what you mean on detailed sense. I would imagine most economists know Keynes well enough yet have never cracked open General Theory. I'm an interested layman and god knows I wouldn't try to read it any more than I'd read Hegel right now if i wanted a deeper understanding of Marx. Hey, there're only so many hours in a day.