“He intends only to his own gain…led by an invisible hand” (p.509 K)
I do not find this statement in full to be a metaphor rather it is analogous to the argument for free markets and Capitalism in sovereign Nations. The invisible hand refers to self-preservation or an innate need to better ones self. This is not a selfish claim rather it is a posit that by ones need to better his own condition Smith asserts that this has a trickle up effect on economic ecologies. By this I mean to say that the individual’s environment, the micro, the family, the community, and the society all benefit from industriousness and frugalness. When Smith talks to individual`s aspiring to accumulate prudently he is talking broadly about people and admits that there are exceptions and outliers.
“Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have that which you want, is the meaning of every such offer”(p.507 K) there is the jist of it: each actor driven by his own respective need, however the effects of the transaction without eithers intent cause ripples in the eco system. “The greater parts of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and purchase. “ (p.507K) It is mutually beneficial and an argument for capitalism in its purest form supply and demand. Smith is arguing that this is not a principled process or a greater good ideology that is forced by another`s hand, a law, or a governing body. Rather that when left to natural inclinations that outliers as in the selfish, the free riders, the gluttonous and greedy of societies are corrected for in free societies that the whole moves toward the mean or homeostasis.
The assumption implies that individuals rights and freedoms to produce, earn, acquire, and accumulate eventually allows the individual to build capital. It is a natural inclination for an individual to strive to better his situation thereby increasing the potential that those around will also benefit via osmosis. As stated by Smith, “But the principle which prompts to save, is the desire to improve our condition, a desire which, though generally calm and dispassionate, comes with us from the womb, and never leaves us til we go the grave” That is a bold statement and the authors voice is clear and does give one pause for some thought. However he continues to makes his case emphatically, “yet in the greater part of men, taking the whole course of their life at an average, the principle of frugality seems not only to predominate, but to predominate greatly…” (p.509K) Here in this reference I hear in the authors voice a confidence in statistics or some study of human behavior.
Many times in this reading Smith refers to parsimony over impetuous directions of another or laws and edicts. I interpret this as a reference to economic and philosophical thesis that the simplest answer is usually the best answer. That a free people left to make their own path so long as they are just will better serve as the driver of economic success of their respective society. “led by an invisible hand which was no part of his plan. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it” (p.509K)
I agree on the theory of individual and free market ideals he proposes with the invisible hand analogy. I see in his final argument for the system of natural liberty the recognition that there is ebb and flow to capitalism. Industry at times does lead to peoples being taken advantage of, monopolies and governmental lust for greed and power. This in turn leads to public push back and then a sway toward heavy handed intervening, laws, and regulations and these are the cause and effects of change. However as Smith suggest in a free peoples the invisible hand guides us back to homeostasis or the mean. Further he suggests that the heavy hand of governing powers and rulers have a stifling or negative effect on free markets. He suggest firmly on governments role, “According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed….” These are plainly stated administering justice, maintaining infrastructures, and protection from violence and attacks from other societies.
Smith`s theory is a bit like Kantian morality theory in that he believes that all men eventually gravitate to the just and moral. A final reference, “but rank, distinction, pre-eminence no man despises, unless he is either raised very much above, or sunk very much below the ordinary standard of human nature; unless he is either so confirmed in wisdom and real philosophy as to be satisfied that, while the propriety of his conduct renders him the just object of approbation”(P.515k). In summary the invisible hand however unintentional guides men to homeostatic or a natural place in the eco system allowing for outliers. As for the criminally gluttonous and the free riders they will be inconsequential and the distribution of laborers, entrepreneur’s, those in charge and those who follow, all of the combined individual successes will lead to ecological economical societal success. This is to say that a fair free market, supply and demand, have built in regulators in economic engines: invisible hands.
“DENY KNOWLEDGE TO MAKE ROOM FOR FAITH” (A&W724r)
“Hence moral theology is only of imminent use. It serves us, namely, to fulfill our vocations here in the world by fitting ourselves into a system of all purpose , and keep from abandoning in a good way of life, through fanaticism or perhaps even wickedness, the guiding thread of a morally legislating reason in order to tie this thread of directly to the idea of a supreme being. For doing the latter would yield a transcendent use of reason and must-just like the reason in mere speculation- pervert and defeat the ultimate purpose of reason” (p.831 R,A&W) I do not find this reference to be excessive rather it is poignant and serves as my claim; Kant is correct in his critique of the three former reasoning theoretical pathways. I agree that the moral argument is more than speculation it is evolutionary thought and in the end supports the metaphysics and empirical theology.
“thus we arrive at a systematic unity of purpose in this world of intelligences-a world that as mere nature can indeed only the sensible world, but that a system of freedom can be called the intelligible, i.e. the moral world.”(p.830 A&W) There is the beginning and end of the argument and in the body (middle) of this short essay; I will support both Kant`s and my own position that this is the more sensible and much like Hume`s compatibility the double stand point and argument for causality versus freedom work. In the preface we hear the beginnings of the thought process, “ Human reason has a peculiar fate in one kind of its cognitions; it is troubled by questions that it cannot dismiss, because they are posed to it by the nature of reason itself, but that it cannot answer, because they surpass human reasons every ability”(p.717 A&W,L) Here Kant begins the argument that the sciences and metaphysics constrict or restrict thought and pure reason does not end in proof or disprove any. He argues that a new system of thought including intuition and concepts trumps the tradition laws of reasoning, a systematic judgment.
Kant cannot see a priori without intuition as it is prior to experience therefore rationalist and empiricist are wrong: there is knowing that does not come from experience or the analytic. “These attempts by the traditional three schools mitigate the attempts to think beyond reason without intuition.” (Louden lecture 2014) This also is the basis for the thesis/anti-thesis posits that argues in that science and metaphysics alone cannot be absolute on freedom versus cause and effect. As such this in support, “Thus all human cognition begins with intuitions, and proceeds from there to concepts, and ends with ideas. This cognition does indeed have—with regard to all three of these elements—a priori sources of cognition that seems at first glance to defy the limits of all experience.
Yet a completed critique convinces us that all our reason in its speculative use can never—with these elements—get beyond the realm of possible experience.” (p.823 A&WL) This he argues is the basis for synthetic and the double standpoint, two different approaches to seeing the self one of appearances and one of noumena or the natural and the things that are not known by any other means but intuitively and free of analytic. Kant also argues that freedom equals event or thoughts based in noumenal basis. Therefore we can freely go beyond reason without the restraints of temporal thought, as this constrains us and inhibits freedom to go beyond the reasoned and practical. Therefore we are back to the moral imperative, “Hence we shall have to assume the moral world has consequences of our conduct in the sensible world, and –since the sensible does not now offer us such a connection between happiness and morality—as being for us a future world. Hence God and a future life are two presuppositions that, according to principles of pure reason, are inseparable from the obligation imposed on us by that same reason” (p.828 A&W, R)
This is the particular advantage of his moral theory, it does not discount the practical it expands on and adds a way to go beyond the rational and empirical through introducing the intuitive and or innate in peoples that are not of experience and observed. This leads one to a sort of Cartesian thought process. If we have a soul, a moral imperative that is not of learning or experience and it leads us beyond the practical reasoned thought to a place that argues we are not of ourselves or unto ourselves separate from the universe of moral reasoning and being. Then we must acknowledge a influence outside of self that has a divine influence and I do not see this as; one religion or one god moreover a higher being or source that inspires us to use our freewill to act morally and pious. An imperative that gives us a view of existence that there is more to living and dying and we are accountable for actions and our being, and so if we are compelled to be moral and will be accounted for this I.e. then there is an accountant whatever you choose to label it. This does not discount or minimize the sciences or practical reasoning it adds a dimension that allows us to think outside of constraints and inspires to be altruistic, just, moral, and pious with reason.
Ariew, Roger, and Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 1998. Print.
Kramnick, Isaac. The Portable Enlightenment Reader. New York: Penguin, 1995. Print.
toddburnettblog 