Titlebook: John Maynard Keynes; A Study in the Psych Piero V. Mini Book 1994 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1994 econo

占線

坦白

The Macmillan Committee and the ,,e 1929 crash he himself wrote to Lydia Keynes that he was ‘becoming more fashionable again’, a statement that recognises the power of . in causing, if not ideas, at least acceptability of ideas. And, indeed, nothing helps as much as trouble in softening hallowed certainties, especially when these ar

esoteric

Costume

Classical Economics as Platonic Forms, were brought up in an educational system centred on classical studies and dominated by Platonic notions of Forms and by Christian attitudes toward the body and passions. In England this tradition was somewhat tempered by British empiricism, and perhaps this is why the most clear-minded methodologis

CLOUT

Existentialism and Keynes,e of this knowledge? The previous two chapters have shown that in the rationalistic tradition the answer to the first question is: we can hope to know Forms or Being, that is, whatever is eternal, universal, immutable and logically necessary. Rationalism answers the second question ‘By what method d

異常

Existentialism in ,, Marshall, Jevons, Ramsey and Malthus had great powers of intuition, as they were able to see the ‘destination’ before discovering a route to it. In a 1936 remark he calls making sense of this ability ‘the most obscure problem of all in the psychology of original work’.1 (Notice the emphasis on the

一回合

同步信息

Was Keynes an Economist?, biographical ground, review Keynes’s main works and concerns, and also sketch out the methodological nature of the system he found so unsatisfactory, classical economics. If by originality we mean break with the past, there is much that is original in Keynes: he did not believe in freedom of capita

適宜

Probability,undamental topics in the theory of knowledge to which, however, the author seldom made a reference in the spirit of a scholar who sees a continuity between it and his later works. On the contrary, a well-known reference to it in . is designed to warn the reader away from ., to distinguish the concep

Conjuction