Talk:Ignoring the Obvious: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "== Date == * What could have been the date of what appears to be the introduction of a conference or a lecture? Since Polanyi uses the formula "common man", he also used in th...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== The Obvious = The Human Nature? == | == The Obvious = The Human Nature? == | ||
* I don't know why Polanyi begun his introduction that is so small that it says nothing, instead of writing more. But the fact is didn't explain what is the | * I don't know why Polanyi begun his introduction that is so small that it says nothing, instead of writing more. But the fact is didn't explain what is the 'obvious' he spoke about in the title. Since he spoke about "human nature", maybe it's the existence of this nature he wanted to prove, beyond all the political differences, following the idea in The GT that liberal utopia was an unprecedented rupture with this human nature. This hypothesis would confirm the idea that this text is contemporary of the writing of ''[[The Great Transformation]]''. --[[User:Santiago Pinault|Santiago Pinault]] ([[User talk:Santiago Pinault|talk]]) 16:17, 11 July 2017 (BST) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:18, 11 July 2017
Date
- What could have been the date of what appears to be the introduction of a conference or a lecture? Since Polanyi uses the formula "common man", he also used in the title he wanted for a second book in 1943-1944 (See 13/04; actually he used "common man" just once in The Great Transformation) and a third times in a hand-written draft in 19/20 (Maturity and the Common Man), I think we can date this two last documents between 1942 and 1946. Since 1946-1947, he replaced the idea of the common man, the 'normal', the man non-perverted by market mentality, in universal investigations on early economies, and didn't use anymore the formula --Santiago Pinault (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2017 (BST)
The Obvious = The Human Nature?
- I don't know why Polanyi begun his introduction that is so small that it says nothing, instead of writing more. But the fact is didn't explain what is the 'obvious' he spoke about in the title. Since he spoke about "human nature", maybe it's the existence of this nature he wanted to prove, beyond all the political differences, following the idea in The GT that liberal utopia was an unprecedented rupture with this human nature. This hypothesis would confirm the idea that this text is contemporary of the writing of The Great Transformation. --Santiago Pinault (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2017 (BST)