3 ms·

Or you could read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations yourself as it is available for free from multiple sources. You should his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Or you could read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations yourself as it is available for free from multiple sources. You should his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments first. It helps with the understanding of the later material.

MaxGanzII 5y ago
In what way? The subjects are utterly different. All I can think of is that it introduces you to Smith and his style of writing. To my eye, this is not of any particular value.
- protomyth 5y ago
  It gives you a primer on his thought process and views which is useful to understand the later work. Understanding an author's beliefs can help interpretation of works.
- psyc 5y ago
  Not writing style. The way he thinks. "Where he's coming from." Some of what his values and worldview are, etc.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  From Wikipedia: “ The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a 1759 book by Adam Smith.[1][2][3] It provided the ethical, philosophical, psychological, and methodological underpinnings to Smith's later works, including The Wealth of Nations (1776), Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795), and Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue, and Arms (1763) (first published in 1896).”
  - MaxGanzII 5y ago
    Wikpedia can write what it likes; to my eye that's empty prose.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      You are supposed to attempt convincing the reader that "your eye" has public merit, credentials, arguments.
      - Supermancho 5y ago
        > "your eye" has public merit, credentials, arguments. I'm not convinced Wikipedia has that either. Some things it gets factually correct, granted. The subjectivity that is selected by wikipedia editors to characterize, is always in question.
        meowkit 5y ago
        > The subjectivity that is selected by <insert pretty much anything here> to characterize, is always in question. So provide something more convincing, not in question, and not subjective. Same problem as your parent comment. Wikipedia is nice because it is mostly inter-subjective - there are always multiple authors monitoring its state to come to a consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity
        iosono88 5y ago
grlass 5y ago
WoN is a good read, though I hope you like reading a lot about how the price of Scottish wool changed year-on-year
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Only now will I look up the book

MaxGanzII 5y ago

In what way? The subjects are utterly different. All I can think of is that it introduces you to Smith and his style of writing. To my eye, this is not of any particular value.

protomyth 5y ago
It gives you a primer on his thought process and views which is useful to understand the later work. Understanding an author's beliefs can help interpretation of works.
psyc 5y ago
Not writing style. The way he thinks. "Where he's coming from." Some of what his values and worldview are, etc.
bobthechef 5y ago
From Wikipedia: “ The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a 1759 book by Adam Smith.[1][2][3] It provided the ethical, philosophical, psychological, and methodological underpinnings to Smith's later works, including The Wealth of Nations (1776), Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795), and Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue, and Arms (1763) (first published in 1896).”
- MaxGanzII 5y ago
  Wikpedia can write what it likes; to my eye that's empty prose.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    You are supposed to attempt convincing the reader that "your eye" has public merit, credentials, arguments.
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      > "your eye" has public merit, credentials, arguments. I'm not convinced Wikipedia has that either. Some things it gets factually correct, granted. The subjectivity that is selected by wikipedia editors to characterize, is always in question.
      - meowkit 5y ago
        > The subjectivity that is selected by <insert pretty much anything here> to characterize, is always in question. So provide something more convincing, not in question, and not subjective. Same problem as your parent comment. Wikipedia is nice because it is mostly inter-subjective - there are always multiple authors monitoring its state to come to a consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity
        iosono88 5y ago

grlass 5y ago

WoN is a good read, though I hope you like reading a lot about how the price of Scottish wool changed year-on-year

ipaddr 5y ago
Only now will I look up the book