This article was quite an interesting read. As expected Aristotle was the worst, then Plato and Socrates the least worst. No punches are pulled and harsh criticism is laid very logically on three people who are considered behemoths when it comes to thinkers in ancient times. The best part actually was the contrast with Taoism at the end. It was actually very eye opening to see the errors of the 3 most popular Greek thinkers of our time. We need to know not only the accomplishment of those before us but also their failures and errors.
Moreover, an almost perfect illustration of his failure to grasp the evolutionary, spontaneous market order lies in his conviction that a polis of over 100,000 inhabitants could never survive, because its government would be unable to organize it. Aristotle understood the polis solely as a self-sufficient body organized from above (autarkia), and not as a historic manifestation of the spontaneous process of social cooperation led by flesh-and-blood human beings endowed with an innate entrepreneurial capacity. Finally, Aristotle followed the Socratic tradition of undervaluing work and entrepreneurial profit, which, in an anonymous and decentralized manner, supported the advanced stage of civilization that is precisely what allowed him and the rest of the philosophers to survive.
Lastly, it is very interesting to note that, during the same era when classical Greek thought was being forged (from the 6th to the 4th century BC), ancient China saw the beginnings of three great currents of thought: that of the so-called "Legalists" (who supported the centralized state), that of the Confucianists (who tolerated it), and that of the Taoists, of a much more liberal bent and extremely interesting for historians of economic thought. Chuang Tzu (369–286 BC) goes as far as to say that "good order results spontaneously when things are let alone." In his criticism of the interventionism of rulers, he describes them as "robbers." Also, according to Rothbard, Chuang Tzu was the first anarchist thinker in history. In fact, Chuang Tzu wrote that the world "does simply not need governing; in fact it should not be governed at all."
Chuang Tzu adhered to the individualistic, liberal views of Lao Tzu, the father of Taoism, and took them to their most logical conclusions. In Confucius's day (from the 6th to the 5th century BC), Lao Tzu concluded that government oppressed the individual and was always "more to be feared than fierce tigers." Therefore, he believed the best policy for governments was "inaction," because only then could the individual flourish and achieve happiness.
Two centuries later, the historian Ssu-ma Ch'ien (145–90 BC) theorized on the entrepreneurship typical of the market, which he felt consisted of keeping "a sharp eye out for the opportunities of the times." As well as being an advocate of laissez-faire, he correctly identified the effects of government debasement of the coinage, which causes a decrease in its purchasing power (that is, a rise in prices). Taoism continued its development for centuries, and in the current era, we find Pao Ching-yen (early 4th century AD), for whom the history of the state is a history of violence and oppression of the weak. The state institutionalizes coercion and worsens and intensifies isolated instances of violence, expanding them on a scale unimaginable in the absence of the state. Pao Ching-yen concludes that the common notion that a strong government is necessary to fight disorder reflects the fallacy of mistaking the cause for the effect. It is the state that generates violence and corrupts the individual behavior of the human beings subjected to it; and all the while it stimulates theft and banditry among them.
In stark contrast with the views of the Greek philosophers and with those of the rest of western intellectuals to the present day, Chinese Taoist thought always defended individual liberty and laissez-faire while attacking the systematic and coercive use of violence typical of government.
Source of shared Link
Economic thought unfortunately did not deepen in the West until the sixteenth century, and the reality is that the great philosophers of antiquity gave little importance to these issues, so that generally no study was done separately, as we do now, of society, politics or economy, but usually these three fields were treated as one.
Although it seems to me an anachronism to speak of capitalism, socialism, statism and anarchy in those times, and precisely in the Mediterranean, place that saw the greatest chessboard of the ancient world, and where some of the greatest civilizations fought among themselves for territories (Greece, Rome, Persia, Egypt, Carthage, and a long etcetera), so they all had a usually militaristic view of the State, and very little could really be studied about economics and trade.
I also find it interesting that they mention Democritus or Protagoras as closer to the free market that Socrates or Plato, and that these two last ones are qualified as socialists, which is absurd, but what is curious is that in the Soviet Union, Democritus was one of the most studied Greek thinkers, praised even by Lenin, and probably one of the few Greek thinkers who harmonized with Marxism, something that did not happen with Socrates or with Plato.
The mention made of Protagoras, and this statement about Socrates, seem to me to be quite, if not totally, misguided.
In the dialogue of Theaetetus, Socrates disputes Protagoras argument that "man is the measure of all things," saying precisely that if Protagoras were right, then justice would vary for each poleis, but it is not like that, justice is universal and laws are not always a representation of it. In this way, Protagoras is the one that confuses positive law with natural law, and not Socrates, who on the contrary had a completely contrary opinion. The opinion of Socrates represented by Plato is that of ideas, justice would exist naturally as the Idea of Justice, and would have absolutely nothing to do with positive law.
There are some other historical inaccuracies, it seems to me that Huerta de Soto, although he has undoubtedly high knowledge, tends to be very economistic, and ends up misrepresenting some thinkers by not taking the economy into account at that time, although I can to say that in general lines, he is right in saying that Socrates, Plato, Aristoteles, etc., had a very poor performance in economic sciences.
Interestingly I have been reading some articles on Taoism, and I can easily sympathize with the idea of "not forcing", it seems to me that at this precise point, Taoism is highly advanced, perhaps in an incomparable way.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
War is a form of coercion and trade is a form of voluntarism. So naturally a civilization that has heavy emphasis on war and militarism would put little emphasis on trade and economics. I haven't extensively studied western philosophy. It just wasn't that interesting for the most part.(Buddhist/Taoist bias could have greatly contributed) I'd say Nietzsche was bit of an exception. But Nāgārjuna was way ahead way before Nietzsche was even a thing.
Recently I've found Epicurus and Pelagius to be under the radar gems. But they don't really offer anything new and interesting. Taoism was ahead the curve of great many things for the simple reason that it is a realization that the things we do to make things better are what make things worse. Order is slavery Chaos is either liberation or death. The problem with most western and even most of the eastern philosophies is that there is obscene amounts of order.
Newtonian Physics look good on paper and Relational Quantum Mechanics can look like voodoo. But Newton's work on physics have no value beyond simple utility. It's a perversion of reality to fit into a certain order.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If you're interested in Epicurus and Taoism I recommend Yang Zhu's "Garden of Pleasure". He tied together hedonism(Epicurean tradition) and taoist thought in a unique form.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great article! I have no enough language proper comment for this post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi @vimukthi!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 4.075 which ranks you at #3240 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 2 places in the last three days (old rank 3238).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 223 contributions, your post is ranked at #47.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit