Toppling Western and Eastern Economics: Chan Economics (Serialization 3)
2006/7/24 20:34:26
Three
Beyond the symbiotic, co-constructive relationship between elements and the constructible set, the most primitive circular definition of human existence also necessitates the symbiotic, co-constructive premise of individual equality and human existence. Moreover, the public nature of theory implicitly contains the promise of equal validity toward any individual audience member. This also renders any theoretical premise divorced from individual equality an untenable premise. Because a necessary premise for any theory to hold is the logical consistency between the theory's premises and conclusions — at the very least, the premises and conclusions must be guaranteed to be logically non-contradictory. Since individual equality and human existence ground the very foundation upon which all theories theorizable by humans can be founded, no theory theorizable by humans can logically contradict them.
The reason existing economics is merely a heap of theoretical or narrowly ideological garbage rather than science is, in large part, that it has neither a clear, unified theoretical starting point nor a rigorous, systematic logical framework. The logical consistency among the self-proclaimed N Major Principles of Economics is an utter mess. Using vulgar mathematical methods and constructing mathematical models that never occur in reality — if such theorizing can be called a theory, then it can only be a theory devoid of reason.
And all theories theorizable by humans are primitively grounded in human existence and individual equality. Any theory theorizable by humans must be logically consistent with the primitive foundation of human existence and individual equality. Of course, economics — unless it continues its current status as theorizing devoid of reason — must also take this as its starting point. As for the so-called economic man or social man hypothesis, there isn't even a unified, consensus-capable formulation, and it is filled with all sorts of bizarre, incoherent concepts. It is absolutely impossible for it to serve as the logical and empirical starting point that a theory in the scientific sense can depend upon.
For example, the requirement of so-called "rationality" in the economic man hypothesis — may I ask, is rationality a more primitive concept relative to the economic man hypothesis? If yes, then the economic man hypothesis is not a primitive starting point — at the very least, "rational man" is more primitive, which thereby excludes the possibility of irrational people appearing in economic theory. But a human is just a human — to say nothing of the complexity of human thought and behavior — as an individual, rationality and irrationality have never been separable. This rational commitment within the economic man concept cannot possibly have a meaningful, complete individual counterpart in reality. Conversely, if rationality is not more primitive, then how can the concept of economic man, as a more primitive concept, allow rationality to be part of the economic man hypothesis? Isn't this as absurd as using triangles to define points and lines?
Similarly, the social man concept often assumes that people are determined by social structures, which also provides a pretext for Hitlerian thought-reform projects. What they fail to understand is that the isomorphism among humans displayed by so-called social structures is not some primitive foundation, but rather the manifestation of humanity's infinite possibilities under specific conditions. There is no necessary deterministic relationship between the two. Moreover, even within the same environment, individuals perform differently. Humans are not water — not the kind of thing that starts to steam just because you set the pressure and dial the temperature to a certain number. The naive belief that a society of certain properties produces people of certain properties, and that people of certain properties constitute a society of certain properties, is often the greatest root of all human evil. Those who treat humans as water have simply had water seep into their own brains!
In short, existing economic theories are all composed of theological concepts of this sort. And the greatest irony is that this economics composed of theological concepts has become the operational guide for nations managing their economies. This, apart from proving the rarity of human rationality and the regularity of human stupidity, probably leaves little else to say. For humans, infinite possibilities exist — human stupidity is infinite, human shamelessness is likewise infinite, and of course, positive descriptions of humanity also exist in infinite possibility. Seizing any one segment to serve as the logical or empirical starting point for describing human activity is as laughable as a blind man groping an elephant. But all of humanity's infinite possibilities must be premised on one premise — the existence of humans. This is the only possible starting point for all theories humanity could possibly produce.
(To be continued)
缠中说禅 2006/7/24 20:45:35
It's already written in relatively plain language. Any more plain and it becomes impossible to write. The creation and popularization of a theory are two different things — popularization naturally has plenty of people who will make it more accessible. That hardly seems like something this ID needs to do.