A Little Scare

By -
I saw an good friend of mine yesterday. When we met, he looked dreadful. In fact, he broke down in tears.

"What's wrong?" I asked.

For a moment he couldn't speak. Finally, he managed to force out the news: "I just found out I have high blood pressure and need to go on medication."

"High blood pressure?" I said. "That's it? The way you looked, I was sure you were going to tell me something absolutely terrible, like your mom died, or you had just seen a bad review of Oakeshott on Rome and America."

Comments

  1. orsamuel6:10 PM

    hi gene

    I really liked your book, it really got me into study economics.

    but what went wrong? don't you agree with the austrian school of economics anymore?

    Do you think it is still worth studying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah6:14 PM

      "don't you agree with the austrian school of economics anymore?"

      It is wrong to think of there being a single view promoted by the Austrian school. There are many disagreements among those who call (called) themselves Austrians. I agree with some Austrians on some things, others Austrians on other things, and on some things perhaps none at all.

      "Do you think it is still worth studying?"

      Certainly.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more