Post Number:#1 
December 1st, 2011, 6:46 pm
Please use this topic to discuss the December 2011 philosophy book of the month, The Enigma of Capital: and the Crises of Capitalism by David Harvey.
What do you think of the book? With which arguments or points of Harvey's do you most agree? With which do you most disagree?
I am still reading the book, so I will comment more when I am done. So far I am very interested by the ideas in the book. I think Harvey does a great job simultaneously not over-simplifying or dumbing down the content while still writing in an accessible way. In other words, one does not need a masters in economics or some such to read and understand the book, yet the book does take the time to intelligently and elaborately address topics with stimulating philosophical specificity, if you know what I mean. However, so far my biggest criticism is that I do not appreciate the way in which what I see as personal opinions/commentary, philosophical arguments and factual background data are all jumbled together; in this way it reminds me of Fox "News" because in contrast I prefer when the author clearly distinguishing between journalism/information and the commentary or philosophizing based upon the information reported.
As for his arguments, I appreciate that the author genuinely seems to be using the principle of charity. In other words, I feel the author is genuinely trying to acknowledge the points of his detractors and recount historical events in relatively fair way. I certainly do not feel like I am just getting--as is not uncommon--the same old regurgitation of outdated anti-capitalist rhetoric and rants, but rather a more in-depth, fair look at modern capitalism in light of modern economic crises.
Anyway, what do you all think?
What do you think of the book? With which arguments or points of Harvey's do you most agree? With which do you most disagree?
I am still reading the book, so I will comment more when I am done. So far I am very interested by the ideas in the book. I think Harvey does a great job simultaneously not over-simplifying or dumbing down the content while still writing in an accessible way. In other words, one does not need a masters in economics or some such to read and understand the book, yet the book does take the time to intelligently and elaborately address topics with stimulating philosophical specificity, if you know what I mean. However, so far my biggest criticism is that I do not appreciate the way in which what I see as personal opinions/commentary, philosophical arguments and factual background data are all jumbled together; in this way it reminds me of Fox "News" because in contrast I prefer when the author clearly distinguishing between journalism/information and the commentary or philosophizing based upon the information reported.
As for his arguments, I appreciate that the author genuinely seems to be using the principle of charity. In other words, I feel the author is genuinely trying to acknowledge the points of his detractors and recount historical events in relatively fair way. I certainly do not feel like I am just getting--as is not uncommon--the same old regurgitation of outdated anti-capitalist rhetoric and rants, but rather a more in-depth, fair look at modern capitalism in light of modern economic crises.
Anyway, what do you all think?
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!
Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?