Scan barcode
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
4.0
I once used to read philosphical works a lot. Back then, I came across someone saying it is a young man's game and thought that it was a snobbish comment. However my own love for philosophy dried out very quickly, I still maintain that to call it a young man's game is snobbish.
Russell defends the supposed uselessness of philosophy on grounds that when a part of it becomes useful, it takes form of some other science. Aristotle has been called father of sciences. While Adam Smith and Sigmeund Freud who are considered fathers of their respective fields - economics and psychology; had as much as the element of Philospher in them as forerunners of their sciences. Studies of economics, mind, physics, law, governments, composition of earth, geometry etc were all philosphy before they grew as seperated and sometimes 'useful' sciences.
Even today and in worlds of exact sciences too, the most valued scientists such as Stephan Hawking, Richard Dawkins etc continue to have an element of philospher in them, clearly visible in thier works.
I think what differentiates them most when compared to other classic philosphers is that their studies, their ideas are more observational rather than their pure fancies. They are forever talking about things that actually are rather than as they 'should be'. No philosphers who make assumptions that have nothing to do with real world interest me much.
Adam Smith falls in this category. His wealth of nations doesn't need much praies and actually turned economics into a separate science. In here though he is talking about morality, a subject that continues to part of philosphy despite all the Kants and Nietzsches it has seen.
Smith's approach to it is not trying to define rights or wrongs - or how they should be defined. Instead he is focused on how morality is nothing but our sentiments. His theory of an inner being with a higher moral compass is interesting. I think I read somewhere Dawkins agree to someone else whom he quoted as saying morality is the feeling that you are being watched.
Equally is interesting is his ideas about how little we are affected by tragedies that happen at a physical distance. He also points out how out sentiments, reflected in our laws, are affected by both intentions of a person as well as consequences of his actions. He distinguishes vanity from pride.
Except for a few starking observations; I don't think there is a lot of uselessness in it except for those who have curious mind (like me). He is very clear and in the observations he make and often looking at same thing from different aspects without ever giving his own opinion.
Russell defends the supposed uselessness of philosophy on grounds that when a part of it becomes useful, it takes form of some other science. Aristotle has been called father of sciences. While Adam Smith and Sigmeund Freud who are considered fathers of their respective fields - economics and psychology; had as much as the element of Philospher in them as forerunners of their sciences. Studies of economics, mind, physics, law, governments, composition of earth, geometry etc were all philosphy before they grew as seperated and sometimes 'useful' sciences.
Even today and in worlds of exact sciences too, the most valued scientists such as Stephan Hawking, Richard Dawkins etc continue to have an element of philospher in them, clearly visible in thier works.
I think what differentiates them most when compared to other classic philosphers is that their studies, their ideas are more observational rather than their pure fancies. They are forever talking about things that actually are rather than as they 'should be'. No philosphers who make assumptions that have nothing to do with real world interest me much.
Adam Smith falls in this category. His wealth of nations doesn't need much praies and actually turned economics into a separate science. In here though he is talking about morality, a subject that continues to part of philosphy despite all the Kants and Nietzsches it has seen.
Smith's approach to it is not trying to define rights or wrongs - or how they should be defined. Instead he is focused on how morality is nothing but our sentiments. His theory of an inner being with a higher moral compass is interesting. I think I read somewhere Dawkins agree to someone else whom he quoted as saying morality is the feeling that you are being watched.
Equally is interesting is his ideas about how little we are affected by tragedies that happen at a physical distance. He also points out how out sentiments, reflected in our laws, are affected by both intentions of a person as well as consequences of his actions. He distinguishes vanity from pride.
Except for a few starking observations; I don't think there is a lot of uselessness in it except for those who have curious mind (like me). He is very clear and in the observations he make and often looking at same thing from different aspects without ever giving his own opinion.
thejdizzler's review against another edition
4.0
Read for philosophy book club with Simon, Logan and Amanda
I have a lot of notes on this, but basically Smith lays out a theory of morality that depends on our sympathy with other human beings. This is a natural system that does not rely on large amounts of learning and philosophizing like other systems (plato, stoics), but rather relies merely on our natural inclinations.
Elegant, simple, and relying on empiricism for its proof, I really enjoyed Smith's theory. However, I do wonder if this theory is too simplistic. Relying solely on our natural intuition hasn't seemed to work too well in the past couple centuries.
I have a lot of notes on this, but basically Smith lays out a theory of morality that depends on our sympathy with other human beings. This is a natural system that does not rely on large amounts of learning and philosophizing like other systems (plato, stoics), but rather relies merely on our natural inclinations.
Elegant, simple, and relying on empiricism for its proof, I really enjoyed Smith's theory. However, I do wonder if this theory is too simplistic. Relying solely on our natural intuition hasn't seemed to work too well in the past couple centuries.
sbenzell's review against another edition
4.0
Honestly extremely boring for large swathes. People have emphathy. This makes them like people who are generous and not like people who are jerks. They like it when generous people are rewarded and jerks are punished. What makes something generous or jerky? When it is much nicer -on the one hand- or selfisher/stupider - on the other hand - than what is socially expected/required (I think there is proto-version of utilitarianism in here).
What's begged? Well, why should a certain act be perceived as kind/generous or jerky? And why should we base our moral system on some sort of majority vote? On the one hand Smith does accept that custom will move around what is considered kind/generous, and that because of correlations, sometimes vices will be percieved as virtues because they are associated with strong or lauded people. It seems like this should fly off into a pure post-modern "what is good is what is percieved as what is good", but Smith thinks that the most basic human desires -- for social approval ("approbation"), wealth ("convenience"), or other "selfish passions" are universal enough, when combined with empathy, to keep morality from flying completely off the rails.
As for "the opinion of an impartial spectator" being normative, this is an intriguing idea that Smith gets credit for introducing. Again we are faced with the question of exactly how impartial we want the spectator to be. A complete alien might not understand our customs well enough to understand how actions were intended, but a neighbor might have a selfish or partisan interest. This seems like asking for a view "behind the veil of ignorance" a move that has been shown to have lots of problems (how do you have a view before you have an identity?).
Still, while this isn't an entirely satisfactory normative theory of morality, it is an intriguing and powerful positive theory of morality -- that moral individuals build a model in their heads of what an impartial observer would think about the situation, and try to deport themselves in that matter. This relates to the idea of the super-ego from Freud, and also to the idea of Reinforcement Learning for LLM models (in order to succeed in RL-ing, the LLM will likely need a good model of what we want from the models, and if trained by an army of, well, representative internet users, this sounds a lot like the 'impartial observer'/view from nowhere which is the idea of Smith).
But gosh so boring and normie! So reasonable! There's some claims I could quibble with but my main take away is how modern and uncontroversial some of this feels. Part of it seems like society-as-it-is-moral-apologetics ala Burkean conservatism, but it seems edgy for the time (e.g. by being irreligious) in a way which is forward looking.
I'll try to find a better book for us to read next time @AndreyFradkin!
What's begged? Well, why should a certain act be perceived as kind/generous or jerky? And why should we base our moral system on some sort of majority vote? On the one hand Smith does accept that custom will move around what is considered kind/generous, and that because of correlations, sometimes vices will be percieved as virtues because they are associated with strong or lauded people. It seems like this should fly off into a pure post-modern "what is good is what is percieved as what is good", but Smith thinks that the most basic human desires -- for social approval ("approbation"), wealth ("convenience"), or other "selfish passions" are universal enough, when combined with empathy, to keep morality from flying completely off the rails.
As for "the opinion of an impartial spectator" being normative, this is an intriguing idea that Smith gets credit for introducing. Again we are faced with the question of exactly how impartial we want the spectator to be. A complete alien might not understand our customs well enough to understand how actions were intended, but a neighbor might have a selfish or partisan interest. This seems like asking for a view "behind the veil of ignorance" a move that has been shown to have lots of problems (how do you have a view before you have an identity?).
Still, while this isn't an entirely satisfactory normative theory of morality, it is an intriguing and powerful positive theory of morality -- that moral individuals build a model in their heads of what an impartial observer would think about the situation, and try to deport themselves in that matter. This relates to the idea of the super-ego from Freud, and also to the idea of Reinforcement Learning for LLM models (in order to succeed in RL-ing, the LLM will likely need a good model of what we want from the models, and if trained by an army of, well, representative internet users, this sounds a lot like the 'impartial observer'/view from nowhere which is the idea of Smith).
But gosh so boring and normie! So reasonable! There's some claims I could quibble with but my main take away is how modern and uncontroversial some of this feels. Part of it seems like society-as-it-is-moral-apologetics ala Burkean conservatism, but it seems edgy for the time (e.g. by being irreligious) in a way which is forward looking.
I'll try to find a better book for us to read next time @AndreyFradkin!
livyyy's review against another edition
5.0
“How selfish soever man may be supposed,
there 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”
Squealing, kicking my feet, twirling my hair. Adam Smith is a genius!!
Okay first things first, I write these reviews for myself. I have a feeling this one will get lengthy and probably incoherent. I promise I’m a better writer than this.
FIRST, simply the fact that Smith was able to come up with so many incredibly insightful ideas in his time is just… wow. I mean people have won Nobel prizes for researching the stuff he just figured out through observation alone and without modern technology. Yes, the writing in this is CLEARLY of its time, but the content is so current and still talked about plenty today. So many of the conclusions he came to in the mid 1700s have been verified recently. Here are a few highlights:
- prospect theory and the over-weighting of loses
- attractiveness as “average”. The more a face is the average of all other faces, the more attractive we find it
- the concept of moral circles (okay which yeah, has its start in Greek philosophy, but he adds a lot of nuance which is ignored today!!)
- diminishing value of things the farther away in time they are
- a two system model of thinking. Passion/instinct vs. reason (as discussed in thinking fast and slow)
And this list barely scratches the surface of insights that made me grin uncontrollably and whisper to myself “so true Adam!!”
SO MANY of the themes and central questions of my favorite books are explored here. Self interest vs. interests of society (ethics of ambiguity), how psychology impacts market behavior (thinking fast and slow), public choice and morality as human nature (the idea of justice- which admittedly is hugely based off TMS)
This isn’t to say the book doesn’t have its flaws. For once, it’s pretty racist at times. And it’s racism isn’t central to its thesis nor much of a highlight at all, but it was unsettling to read for pages and pages. It’s also mildly misogynistic, and it’s not like it gets a pass for it’s issues being published in the 1700s, but it’s more understandable? It also calls children exclusively “it” which isn’t problematic, just something I thought was funny. Also, it’s so long. And for what. I love this book but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t in PAIN every time I picked it up. Reading philosophy is wanting to cry and pry your brain out all for those few seconds where something makes sense and you want to cry of joy.
I wonder where our world would be if TMS was as widely read as the wealth of nations. Would the Thatcherite era be as strong as it was? Would Smith be used less as a defendant for corrupt capitalism? I’ll have to return to this question once I read the wealth of nations. Genuinely after reading this book everything I’ve read before pales in comparison. It’s such an impressive and timeless exploration into human nature and morality.
As the legend of Margaret Thatcher goes that she carried the wealth of nations in her handbag, I will be that but with TMS.
there 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”
Squealing, kicking my feet, twirling my hair. Adam Smith is a genius!!
Okay first things first, I write these reviews for myself. I have a feeling this one will get lengthy and probably incoherent. I promise I’m a better writer than this.
FIRST, simply the fact that Smith was able to come up with so many incredibly insightful ideas in his time is just… wow. I mean people have won Nobel prizes for researching the stuff he just figured out through observation alone and without modern technology. Yes, the writing in this is CLEARLY of its time, but the content is so current and still talked about plenty today. So many of the conclusions he came to in the mid 1700s have been verified recently. Here are a few highlights:
- prospect theory and the over-weighting of loses
- attractiveness as “average”. The more a face is the average of all other faces, the more attractive we find it
- the concept of moral circles (okay which yeah, has its start in Greek philosophy, but he adds a lot of nuance which is ignored today!!)
- diminishing value of things the farther away in time they are
- a two system model of thinking. Passion/instinct vs. reason (as discussed in thinking fast and slow)
And this list barely scratches the surface of insights that made me grin uncontrollably and whisper to myself “so true Adam!!”
SO MANY of the themes and central questions of my favorite books are explored here. Self interest vs. interests of society (ethics of ambiguity), how psychology impacts market behavior (thinking fast and slow), public choice and morality as human nature (the idea of justice- which admittedly is hugely based off TMS)
This isn’t to say the book doesn’t have its flaws. For once, it’s pretty racist at times. And it’s racism isn’t central to its thesis nor much of a highlight at all, but it was unsettling to read for pages and pages. It’s also mildly misogynistic, and it’s not like it gets a pass for it’s issues being published in the 1700s, but it’s more understandable? It also calls children exclusively “it” which isn’t problematic, just something I thought was funny. Also, it’s so long. And for what. I love this book but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t in PAIN every time I picked it up. Reading philosophy is wanting to cry and pry your brain out all for those few seconds where something makes sense and you want to cry of joy.
I wonder where our world would be if TMS was as widely read as the wealth of nations. Would the Thatcherite era be as strong as it was? Would Smith be used less as a defendant for corrupt capitalism? I’ll have to return to this question once I read the wealth of nations. Genuinely after reading this book everything I’ve read before pales in comparison. It’s such an impressive and timeless exploration into human nature and morality.
As the legend of Margaret Thatcher goes that she carried the wealth of nations in her handbag, I will be that but with TMS.
samranakhtar's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
inquiry_from_an_anti_library's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
This book was written before the more famous writing of The Wealth of Nations, and was meant to play a prerequisite role for the latter book. Smith expresses the complexity of sentiments, of personalities. Observations of how people behave are at the heart of the explanations of the complicated nature of sentiments. As this is a book about how individuals behave, it is also a book about how individuals judge others. People judge others relative to their own understanding of the situation. Our experiences shape the way in which we consider the impact of action.
Situations arise that give everyone occasion for sympathy, to consider what it would be like from another persons’ perspective. The closer the situation is to the individual the more effect it has on sentiments. The gravity of situations far away hold attention less than minor issues near. This and many other double standards apply to our sentiments, with another being that of joy and injury. In conversations, each can agree and disagree with issues and even find entertainment in the conversations, but what bothers everyone is if the injuries suffered go unanswered in claims of indignation. Joy provides sympathies of joy, but grief does not provide sympathies of grief.
An impartial spectator stalks our every word and gesture to make sure they are proper for the occasion. Always considering what others will say or do in response to every word and gesture. Sometimes people inspire emulation in us not only because they are admirable, but because they are admirable. Emulation requires the impartial spectator to judge our character and conduct. To view our character and conduct as others would view them. To be praiseworthy so that praise provides pleasure. Rewards and punishment require their proportioned responses. Appropriate proportioned responses are needed for justice to everyone in the situation. Unproportioned responses creates indignation.
The way everyone presents themselves creates a demand for other to see them as such. To not only be respectable but to be respected. The reverse applies the same as the avoidance of appearing contemptible and being contemned. To become not only the thing that is desirable, but to be desirable. In this gratification of vanity does the invisible hand influence the individual to advance the interest of society.
The book is difficult to read. Some parts are crisp and clear while others are very convoluted. Given the time when the book was written, many words have changed their meanings making it difficult to fully grasp what the author is saying. The power of this book lies in its observations of human actions, and although they are provided in their complexity, they do miss many critical different ways of acting. A consistent assumption is that societies feedback will reach each individual which constrains some actions while facilitates other actions. This assumption is often broken, and only briefly written about in the book under a different category.
Situations arise that give everyone occasion for sympathy, to consider what it would be like from another persons’ perspective. The closer the situation is to the individual the more effect it has on sentiments. The gravity of situations far away hold attention less than minor issues near. This and many other double standards apply to our sentiments, with another being that of joy and injury. In conversations, each can agree and disagree with issues and even find entertainment in the conversations, but what bothers everyone is if the injuries suffered go unanswered in claims of indignation. Joy provides sympathies of joy, but grief does not provide sympathies of grief.
An impartial spectator stalks our every word and gesture to make sure they are proper for the occasion. Always considering what others will say or do in response to every word and gesture. Sometimes people inspire emulation in us not only because they are admirable, but because they are admirable. Emulation requires the impartial spectator to judge our character and conduct. To view our character and conduct as others would view them. To be praiseworthy so that praise provides pleasure. Rewards and punishment require their proportioned responses. Appropriate proportioned responses are needed for justice to everyone in the situation. Unproportioned responses creates indignation.
The way everyone presents themselves creates a demand for other to see them as such. To not only be respectable but to be respected. The reverse applies the same as the avoidance of appearing contemptible and being contemned. To become not only the thing that is desirable, but to be desirable. In this gratification of vanity does the invisible hand influence the individual to advance the interest of society.
The book is difficult to read. Some parts are crisp and clear while others are very convoluted. Given the time when the book was written, many words have changed their meanings making it difficult to fully grasp what the author is saying. The power of this book lies in its observations of human actions, and although they are provided in their complexity, they do miss many critical different ways of acting. A consistent assumption is that societies feedback will reach each individual which constrains some actions while facilitates other actions. This assumption is often broken, and only briefly written about in the book under a different category.