Another reason for the infrequency, however, is because, while I may be thinking about philosophical subjects, I tend to avoid recording them. This will not be the case for this post.
Two things; both sprouting from discussions I've been thinking about in school.
About two days ago, I started my second semester in community college taking "Art Appreciation", "Macroeconomics", and "History of Religion in America." Of course, all three of these hit very close to my heart; the last two for obvious reasons. Art, in my opinion, is the aesthetical representation of philosophical values, which is why it is a topic of consideration, as well.
1. In Macroeconomics, we were discussing the definition of GDP, and the purpose of studying economics and the professor posed the following question.
"If population grows by 5% and GDP only grows by 3%, is this a good thing?"
I think it would be a temptation, especially for mainstream economists, to say that it is not because the economy isn't growing "fast enough" to sustain the population growth. To me, this is a fallacy. GDP growth does not equal a sustainable or "healthy" economy.
This fallacy buds from a simplistic view of capital. Austrians identified a concept called "Capital structure". Some goods are closer to consumer goods (lower in the capital structure) than other goods. Goods higher in the capital structure are more "capital intensive", in that they take a longer time to produce profitable yields. An example of a consumer good would be a can of coke. An example of a "capital intensive" good would be the aluminum used to make the can (or the ingredients in the soda itself). These goods have to be produced, and are bought by manufacturing firms, etc. but they are not directly sold to the consumer in most cases.
Consider these examples by economist Robert Murphy; if we spent every penny of capital in the nation on tractors, GDP would rise, however we'd all starve to death because we didn't buy any food. Or, if we produced hammers, but no nails.
If your view of capital only looks at the number, you miss the long term effects of a policy. This is the reason why so many mainstream economists missed the housing market crash; they only saw the GDP growth during the boom period, but they ignored the inevitable bust.
"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate, but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group, but for all groups." -- Henry Hazlitt, the one lesson
2. In my "History of Religion in America" class, we were discussing the Lutheran reformation, and its theology, and Calvinist theology. While much of it was very accurate, some of it was a caricature of what Calvinists actually believe.
The issue here is that he misrepresented views on free agency vs. free will, and misrepresented views of predestination and the assurance of salvation. One comment the professor made about Calvinists was that they spend their time trying to figure out who is "truly elect" when, in reality, we know that those who are elect are granted faith, by the grace of God, which grants salvation.
And so I'll leave you with Romans 9 to consider.
Hope to post more, soon!
Not to mention that Calvinists spend NO time trying to figure out who is "truly elect" since they know that only God can know a man's heart with certainty. (There's a comment for you Austin! Do not despair; keep writing.) :o)
ReplyDelete