| | I read 20+ pages. I thought the polylogism/psychologism discussion interesting, but was left unsatisfied by the author's settling on various quotes of the various people's views, rather than stripping the issues down, and, especially, putting logic, epistemology, psychology, and economics into their appropriate conceptual relations with respect to the idea of human action.
If I understand the author's project, he is relying on what are self-characterized as tenuous, controversial relations between and influences upon certain thinkers by certain other ones. That, in a central position in a work of intellectual originality disappoints me. If this were an historical analysis, maybe.
I must repeat, I read only that much, and I have never studied economics, so I'm not at all familiar with what is the usual fare in dissertations. I wish the author well.
|
|
