/lit/ - Literature

told him to read adam smith and he actually did it the madman ahahah

>>17254003
From what I’ve gathered, people tend misunderstand TWoN

>>17254003
One is prescriptive while the other is descriptive.

>>17254003
I'll be tied up for the next five hours or so but if the thread is still up by then i'll type out an answer. Smith is very specific with what he means by Sympathy and Self interest/Self-Love, and modern understandings of those words tend to obscure his meaning.

>>17254003
Dont RELY on it.

bump

>>17254025
Adam Smith was really a socialist guys, honest!

>>17254271
Based Autistic anime chic profile anon.
I enjoy your effortposts very much, I'm excited to read your take.

>>17254271
Yeah, they haven't really come to terms with the author

>>17255498
Never said that. But he wasn’t a sociopath

“The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”
–ADAM SMITH

>>17255709
that's just christianity, you edgy athiest

>>17255714
What are you fishing for even?

>>17255721
you say you hate christians but then fawn over the failed like a true christian

>>17255709
You haven't read either of the books posted ITT, why even bother to contaminate this thread with your presence?

>>17255729
Morality does not start with a religion. It does start with simple human interactions. We’re raised to not hit siblings, to learn to share, to do chores, etc., all in order to live well within group dynamics.
Yes, Smith was from a Christian society and yes, socialism has christian roots. But, I think wisely, parted with the traditional and obedient to centralized power ideology pf religion
The “failed”? We do all the work. We’re why the “winners” sleep in mansions and keep islands for sex trafficking and tax dodging.
Why’re you a bootlicker?

>>17255750
Neither have you

>>17255773
>religion is brainwashing of children
>"We’re raised to not hit siblings, to learn to share, to do chores, etc., all in order to live well within group dynamics" but this is the GOOD kind of brainwashing

>>17255750
He's a (technically former) tripfag, so obviously he's a narcissist.

>>17255773
Wow. Everything you said is wrong. Morality is an intellectual/philosophical concept. What you describe is survivability: don’t kill because people they’ll kill you back or you’ll cause some disturbance, and if there are no negative consequences, there’s nothing wrong with killing. But to know it’s wrong to kill regardless of any human interaction you have, that’s morality, which has developed from religion. This isn’t even mentioning moral relativists who exist today.

>>17254025
>>17255709
>>17255773
Wtf? What books on economics have you read if you haven't even read Adam Smith?
And how can you assume that the other anon didn't read Adam Smith when he is such a seminal figure?
And how can you say that you think most people tend to misunderstand Adam Smith if you yourself haven't read him?
Did you take this opinion from somebody else's opinion on the quality "most people's" opinions of the opinions of Adam Smith?
Wtf, just read his books already...

>17255833
>cat who can’t read

>17255826
>recategorizes morality to save face for his church

>clogging up a thread with personal beef
Stupid males

>>17255874
First, what's up with the self-hatred? Is it the gender dysphoria?
Second, you're the one who can't read you stupid bitch, that's why you still haven't read Adam Smith.
Third, you still haven't answered my questions lol.
Fourth, learn how to use these >>faggot
Please go read Adam Smith, you might actually learn some actual economics.
You also won't have to interpret his ideas through the filter of 20 other different people's opinions lmao.

The main thing people should take away from the Wealth of Nations is that Adam Smith thought that his famous invisible hand wasn’t the market, but the hand of God. Many people don’t realize that he was describing a religious belief, not a scientific one

>>17255953
First of all, I disagree with your assertion that Adam Smith was not laying out a scientific thesis but a religious one. I think it's obvious to anyone who has actually read his work that he was taking a plainly scientific approach to describing economics (just as the physiocrats before him did).
Second, if Adam Smith did have a semi-religious picture of what he was describing in his head, then so what?
Sir. Isaac Newton, when he was describing physical phenomena, sometimes had a religiously informed conception of the mechanics of that phenomenon in his head--though he always approached the prospect of describing these seemingly unexplainable, though mundane, occurrences in a supremely scientific way. As it happens, Leibniz actually accused Newton of believing gravity to be an "occult quality" and this language of gravity as an occult quality was actually used couple more times in the early days of physics (gravity's properties where unexplained and of course couldn't be understood at that time. They still aren't really.).
At any rate, the fundamental theorems of welfare economics do a good job of formalizing some of the mechanisms of the invisible hand in a market.

>>17255931
thats a girl

>>17256185
No he's not, but I'm pretty sure you're that one tripfag who's an unironic pedophile, so you should probably go and kill yourself right now anon.

>>17255826
>that’s morality, which has developed from religion.

No, it developed from evolution.

>>17255833
Most people don't read Archimedes or Newton but still study math

>>17257210
Most people don't understand shit about what they're doing

>>17254003
Sorry it's late, but i got held up with other obligations. It is also far too long but i cant be bothered to edit it down more.
First it will be useful to look at the account of Sympathy and Self-love which Smith gives, which will help clear up the confusion.
For Smith, Sympathy is the natural tendency of humans towards a 'fellow-feeling' of others. In modern usage it may be something closer to empathy, but more nuanced. Initially we see
>Whatever is the passion which arises from any object in the person principally concerned, an analogous emotion springs up, at the at the thought of his situation, in the breast of the spectator [...] Sympathy ... denote[s] our fellow-feeling with any passion whatever.
From this we can say that Sympathy for Smith involves the feelings which spring up upon viewing the actions or situation of another person. But, as the last part indicates, this is not limited to positive sentiments: it may be that by Sympathy we feel great anger, or disgust, envy or pride, as much as me may feel pity or another traditionally sympathetic emotion. But the mechanism of Sympathy isn't a mirroring of another's emotions, but rather a mirroring of their situation.
>As we have no immediate experience of what other men feel, we can form no idea of the manner in which they are affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel in the like situation. [...] by the imagination we place ourselves in his situation [...] for as to be in pain or distress of any kind excites the most excessive sorrow, so to conceive or to imagine that we are in it, excites some degree of the same emotion, in proportion to the vivacity or dullness of the conception.
So as we can see, what Sympathy truly is, in Smith's mind, is a projection of yourself into the situation of another. This is a subtle, but important difference to simply mirroring emotions: every individuals Sympathetic projection is shaded by their own opinions, experiences, and values. And indeed, we often turn this Sympathy on ourselves, which is what the Impartial Spectator is: a sympathetic imagination of how others would view us in the situation we are in. In a way this spectator represents the customs and mores of society, but always in respect to how they impact on ourselves and our reputation in the eyes of others.

>>17258311
Self-love is Man's natural propensity to primarily care for himself and his own affairs. It is only natural that individual pay closer attention to his own lot than to the lot of others, as, noted above, true access to the feelings of others is impossible for us. But this self-interest and focus is not bad in and of itself. As Smith notes
>Regard to our own private happiness and interest, too, appear upon many occasions very laudable principles of action. The habits of oeconomy, industry, discretion, attention, and application of thought, are generally supposed to be cultivated from self-interested motives, and at the same time are apprehended to be very praise-worthy qualities, which deserve the esteem and approbation of everybody.
But Self-love plays a further role, which taken into account with Sympathy.
>When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others? It is not the soft power of humanity, it is not that feeble spark of benevolence which Nature has lighted up in the human heart, that is thus capable of counteracting the strongest impulses of self-love [...] it is a stronger power, a more forcible motive, which exerts itself upon such occasions. It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct. that when we prefer ourselves so shamefully and so blindly to others, we become the proper objects of resentment, abhorrence, and execration.
It is from this position of 'impartiality' that we realise our own interests are so often tied with the interests of others. If we act with excessive greed and coercion, we will be resented by others; but if we act with consideration to others, in a fair and moderate manner, we will be looked upon favorably. If only to earn societies approbation, we must act in a way which society approves of. Consequentially, the interests of individuals and of society so frequently align. Even the pursuit of wealth follows this pattern
>It is because mankind are disposed to sympathise more entirely with our joy than with our sorrow, that we make parade of our riches, and conceal our poverty [...] It is chiefly from this regard to the sentiments of mankind, that we pursue riches and avoid poverty. [...] The rich man glories in his riches, because he feels that they naturally draw upon him the attention of the world, and that mankind are disposed to go along with him in all those agreeable emotion with which the advantages of his situation so readily inspire him. At the thought of this, his hear seems to swell and dilate iteslf within him, and he is fonder of his wealth, upon this account, than for all other advantages it may procure him.

>>17258319
If we acted with excessive greed and deception, all the wealth in the world would be meaningless to us, for we would only be held in scorn by others. It is the love of how we would wish to be viewed by others that overrides—in our actions—the excesses of overwhelming self-interest. Precisely what distinguishes self-love from selfishness is this: self-love takes account and is moderated by the views and interests of others, while selfishness ignores all propriety and is detrimental to others. Somewhat paradoxically, it is often self-interest which restrains selfishness.
So, in a way, even propriety is a kind of Self-love--it is a love of how we wish the world to see us, the esteem which we expect from society if we act in such a way which is esteemed by society. It is from self-love that, when our passions and partiality do not distort our judgements, we act in such a social manner. And indeed it is through Sympathy that our self-love is refined and finds its proper target.
So we can see, when taken together, self-love and sympathy compliment each other, and tend towards social cohesion. But, as mentioned earlier, that sympathy for others is not strictly positive. So in the famous passage
>Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them [...] It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizen
The baker, the butcher, and the brewer all operate under sympathy as much in their commercial interactions as in their benevolence. When they see the beggar, they will have Sympathy for him, but it is likely that sympathy will not be positive; they will imagine themselves in the beggars position, and will scorn him for his laziness or presumptuousness, as they in the situation would do something else to lift them from that position. The beggar is not the appropriate recipient of their benevolence. But when i approach you respecting your interests, appealing to your self-love (which includes your desire for the approval of your fellows), then the sympathetic response is likely to be far more positive. In exchange we are mirroring the other's feelings: we are recognising the value of each others work, gratifying each others interests, and sharing in each other's joys and sorrows.

>>17258329
The tendency to truck, barter, and exchange goes beyond mere money but to all facets of life: gossip, friendship, news, in almost every interaction we are exchanging something. We want to commiserate with each other, to see and be seen
And i think this is why Smith was so sympathetic to commercial society and economic exchange, and even went to so far as to view it as a kind of friendship. It was a highly social, highly sympathetic exchange between equals for the benefit of both parties and society as a whole. Each party indulges their self love while sympathising with the other. We have to remember that for Smith commerce was primarily something that occurred through the bustling marketplace, and was quite a personal experience. The worst excesses of industrial revolution hadn't reached Scotland and most enterprises were very localised. Which is also why, i think in part, he hated large-scale industrialists, 'merchants' (often referring to large trading corporations), and land-owners so much--not only were they largely unproductive (what we would nowadays call rent-seekers), but they also violated the mutual and almost communal nature of commerce. They were often coercive, manipulative, and impersonal, and completely free of the propriety which moderates individuals to act in the benefit of society. There was no mutual esteem, but a drive for domination and wealth.
So it is that both self-love and sympathy are essential aspects of society, and that in tandem they are a largely beneficial force. It is by our self-love that we come to extend our sympathies to others; and it is from our sympathy of others that the worst excesses of self-love are tamed and refined. It is from sympathy that we desire to attain riches and fame, for we wish to seen in high regards to others. But since our desire is primarily esteem, it may too be from self-love that we are motivated to the greatest acts of charity and benevolence. It is sympathy and self-love, and the intricate relation between them, which binds together community and greases the wheels of exchange. And among our desires is to see others share our joys and be happy in turn
>How selfish soever man may be supposed, they are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.
The great and resounding message across all of Smith's work is just how well suited people are for living together. It is a joyous image that he paints of natural harmony of human society, how order prevails from motivations often seen as base and unfitting for moral and political interactions. An anon mentioned in the thread that Smith viewed the invisible hand was the hand of god. While not completely correct, isn't too far off. Smith, to paraphrase Blake, saw 'the world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower'. But for Smith, that 'wild flower' was human society.

>>17258341
Fuck I need to get better at editing down my posts and being more concise. I really am sorry about this one.

>>17254127
This, Nations is an attempt to get all the information so an accurate moral map can be drawn.