It was a good introduction for someone like myself with absolutely no idea what economics is about describing how one theory were introduced given the background at the time. I admit that I skimmed all those math part but I hope I got the basic idea and its significance until today😅. Maybe I'll try 雇用、利子および貨幣の一般理論 for the next, which I found it was being forgotten and piled up amongst the other books. My takeaway is that while Neoclassical models places emphasis on equilibrium which is achieved on its own, Keynesian argues for demand where there is a need for involvement of government. I still need to go back and forth the book to understanding how those two can provide different explanation for things like interest or unemployment rate, but for now I think its enough to just keep in mind how the two differ in the very basic idea which they depend on. 新古典派理論において、生産水準と労働などの雇用量を決めるのはコスト<限界費用>である...現実の経済においても、こうした<恵まれた>情況で生産を行っている企業もあるだろう...しかし...大多数の企業は、もし売れるならもっと生産を行いたいのだが、作っても売れないからそれ以上生産を行いのではないか...彼が"有効需要の原理"と呼んだもののエッセンスを述べれば以上のようになる - p135, ケインズ—時代と経済学 One interesting line I found in the book is its referrence to リアル・ビジネス・サイクル理論. すべからく現状を肯定するリアル・ビジネス・サイクル理論は新古典派経済学の"終着点"というべきものである...市場機構礼讃の合理的期待学派、リアル・ビジネス・サイクル理論が盛行したのも時の流れであったのかもしれない...いずれにしてもそれ自体将来の思想史、経済学史上の興味ぶかい研究対象となるであろう - p193, ケインズ—時代と経済学 It reminds of what was said about historians back in 19th centry. Considering today's historians' view of history, I see a common ground in 有効需要の原理 given they both argue for human involvement. 見えざる手が普遍的調和の心配をしてくれるだろう。歴史上の事実それ自身が、より高いものへ向う恵み深くかつ明らかに限りのない進歩という思考の事実を立証するものと見られていたのです - p23, 歴史とは何か The line also rang my bell from another book regarding Spencer's view on education. I believe in such 合理的期待 seen in 楽天的マクロ経済, while agreeing that its quite unrealistic in practice😅. スペンサー氏に従えば、合理的な教育は...子どもをまったくの自由に放任しなければならないだろう - p56, 社会学的方法の基準 By the way, speaking of analogy, there was this metaphor describing stock market as beauty contest. I think similar nature can be seen in Rousseau's "general will". Its something to think about looking at the politics these days haha.
It was one of those books which gives insights into the world today, and myself. Maybe I'm still the 若者 referred at the end of the book. But not sure if there is anything that I can do about it. Hope I'll figure it out. For the next book, I would like to read 消費社会の神話と構造 or 大転換 expecting the same kind of insights. Maybe I'll start with the 消費社会の神話と構造, along with 社会学的方法の規準 which is still sitting next to my Raspberry Pi😅. I wonder if 大転換 is better read with little bit of background on economics, I'll look into it. It's interesting to find out how society are being shaped by economics, and its consequence on us. Hope to read ゆたかな社会 and 孤独な群集 at some point as well. W. W. ロストウ（Walt Whitman Rostow）によれば、経済成長の結果として欧米先進諸国は20世紀に「高度大衆消費」の段階に入る。また J. K. ガルブレイス（John Kenneth Galbraith）によれば「ゆたかな社会」がアメリカ社会の日常として実現する。だが、こうした社会のありかたを資本主義というベースから批判的にとらえ返したのが J. ボードリヤール（Jean Baudrillard）の「消費社会論」であった。たしかにガルブレイスも「ゆたかな社会」における人間の疎外を描き出し、D. リースマン（David Riesman）も大衆社会の孤独を描き出そうとしたが、ボードリヤールの消費社会論はそうした人間学や社会心理的な分析ではなく、記号論的分析やマルクス（Karl Marx）の価値形態論をベースにしながら消費の社会学的分析を行ったところに特色がある - 現代社会学事典
Hi, another book review for this book. I always feel something 自己実現的 reading this kind book, such another book is this. And it's occasionally suffocating if I were to quote from the book, like there is no way out. To summerize, the idea of 労働力商品の所有者としての労働者 and 消費社会 are the two where I find such 自己実現性. Its kind of ironic like what we believe to be logical isn't really logical given the logic of Capitalism, as said below. ウェーバーが"プロテスタンティズムの倫理と資本主義の精神"の末尾部分で...近代社会を激しく糾弾したのは...そのような社会に適合して生きる近代人が、実際には倒錯的なものでしかない自らの精神的態度<形骸化した"禁欲">を合理的なものとして誇っていることへの憤りゆえであった And maybe what we need is such spirit of observing the world just as it is, said by Spinoza, but I would like to find laughter and pity in such observation opposing to Spinoza as the author suggests. 笑うな、泣くな、ただ理解せよ With that all being said, there were couple of books introduced, which I would like to read if I were to go further on the topic. I was interested in how the transition from Imperialism, Fordism and 消費社会 can be explained by, fits in to the picture of 資本論. Maybe I should take a look into 大転換 and 消費社会の神話と構造 as recommended. Reading such books gives better understanding of how today came to "today", and how I came to end up in such "today". ポピュリズム大陸 南米 is rather for pure curiosity, as I'm thinking of visiting Argentina next August, and thought would be interesting to learn its history and how the current libertarian government came to place given below. 無論、ヨーロッパや南米などで、反新自由主義を標榜する政権が登場するなどしているが、その打倒には程遠い And yes, I also need to start studying Spanish as well. That's it for today's post! --- Random thought from 2025/07/02 --- The trip to Argentina isn't that cheap, considering how much I make. And this makes me wonder it's not the money in itself where the value resides. I mean if you don't spend it for time or things you value, isn't that as just same as you not making that amount of money. Reminds me below. プロテスタンティズムの職業生活の成功によって自己の救済を不断に確信せねばならないという信仰から合理的で勤勉な生活態度...を"世俗的禁欲"とウェーバーは呼んだが...それは、財の有用性を享受することではなく、抽象的な"価値"の蓄積へとすべての努力を振り向ける I guess spending isn't as easy as it sound :-) Might be good to think about what I really value.
I'm writing this post because I was impressed by what its written haha. The book explains 労働力の商品化 as 諸在価値 to be 通約可能. And argues how such 通約可能性 wasn't possible back in Greece for the reason below. ギリシア社会は奴隷労働にもとづいており、したがって、人間とその労働力の不等を自然基礎としていたのであるからである And it continues discussing the nature of 貨幣 specific to Capitalism as the 通約可能性 and its consequence as below. 本来、何らかの具体的欲望をかなえるために貨幣を求める、というのが欲望の正常なあり方だとすれば、ここで現れるのは貨幣それ自体への欲望である...倒錯性 Its interesting how it associates this 倒錯性 to those 規範 seen in 前近代社会. したがって、古代社会は、貨幣を、その経済的なおよび道徳的な秩序の破壊者として批判する It also associates this 倒錯性 to 抽象的な価値の蓄積 within the context of Max Weber's Protestantism on Capitalism ... プロテスタンティズムの職業生活の成功によって自己の救済を不断に確信せねばならないという信仰から合理的で勤勉な生活態度...を"世俗的禁欲"とウェーバーは呼んだが...それは、財の有用性を享受することではなく、抽象的な"価値"の蓄積へとすべての努力を振り向ける ... which leads to the modern Capitalism. And I believe this transition is what The Great Gatsby was depicting. この...勤勉さは、その原初の緊張感を失っていき、致富に成功した資本家は奢侈に流れもするだろう And below sounds to explain a lot of what I see in myself, and I'm impressed how things can be explained in such manner. ウェーバーが"プロテスタンティズムの倫理と資本主義の精神"の末尾部分で...近代社会を激しく糾弾したのは...そのような社会に適合して生きる近代人が、実際には倒錯的なものでしかない自らの精神的態度<形骸化した"禁欲">を合理的なものとして誇っていることへの憤りゆえであった Its just amazing how and where you get to "re"discover yourself. It always leaves me questioning about myself and the world, which I kinda like it haha. May be I should read プロテスタンティズムの倫理と資本主義の精神 for the start. Also, the book draws an analogy between 一般的等価形態 and Hobb's 社会契約説. The 社会契約説 seems to explain the underlying assumptions of today's world which I am unaware of, taking it for granted. Might be good to take a look at リヴァイアサン as well. By the way, I'm thinking of going to this tomorrow. I hope I now have a better understanding of surrealism, able to appreciate them a bit😅, after reading this book.
The book was great giving lists of novels, describing how they can be characterized and fits in the context of "American". And there are couple of books that was introduced which I thought might be good to read in the future. - ライ麦畑でつかまえて - カッコーの巣の上で - キャッチ＝２２ - 見えない人間 I would definitely read "Inivisible Man", maybe I'll try others as well, but all the above I'm interested in Richard Powers, a novelist introduced at the very end of the book. In the epilogue, the book gives some advice for how and what can one expect from reading books, as below. 自分の読み方について考える時には、相手に自分を活性化してもらうという肯定的な発想にせよ他者を消費するという否定的発想にせよ、とにかくそうした非対称的な発想以外の道はないか考えてみることはできる Richard Powers is introduced as where we can find such 非対称性 in relation between 自分 and 他者 in his novels. パワーズという作家の大きな特徴は、世界を思い描く上で、意味づける自分と対象、自己と他者、というふうに非対称的な関係を根底にそえるのではなく、自分と対象<...対象が一枚の写真であれ、一人の他人であれ、第一次世界対戦であれ...>との関係がまずあって、刻々と変化していくその関係から、そのつど自分と対象とが分泌されていく And I believe such experience described as below are those moment when we become aware the 対称性 of today in relation to all the other times in the course of history. いわゆる"近代文化"-が、自らを決定的であるとする思い込みこそ、視界に生じた信じがたい頑迷さと狭隘さではないのか、という漠然とした直感がその根底に見出される。そしてそのように感じる時、私たちは自分たちが狭く閉ざされた場所から逃れ出て、再び星空の下に立ち、最善のことも最悪のこともすべてが可能な、真正で深遠で、恐ろしく見通しのきかない底しれない世界に出たのだという、えも言われぬ印象を持つのである Also, it should be the kind of relation which E.H. Carr describes as below. 過去は現在の光に照らされて初めて知覚できるようになる。現在は過去の光に照らされて初めて十分理解できるようになる By the way, I found out that Richard Powers is graduate of UIUC. I wonder if can go back to school and take his English courses haha.
This is the review, or rather my takeaway, of the book. I want to go over the book by quoting the two lines found in the book from E.H Carr. The first quote below, I believe, reflects the very argument that was repeated in the book... 過去は現在の光に照らされて初めて知覚できるようになる ... which is below. The above quote well points out that there always is a perspective, and its the perspective(現在) that allows us to look at(知覚) the past. 世界に起こることは無限であり、なんらかの意味づけをしなければ、それ自体に意味はない。どの事実をどのように整理して理解可能にするのか...事実は一定の観点に関係づけられてはじめて事実として浮かび上がる The second quote, from E.H Carr as well, is given as below. 現在は過去の光に照らされて初めて十分理解できるようになる Note that its not 知覚 as in the first quote, but its 理解. As far as I understand, the point is that we can only understand ourselves(現在) when there is a past that allows to place and study ourselves in relation to. The books wraps up with below line. I think the kind of discussion is needed, not just on the matter of 中立, but to really any subject out there in the world. この終章で考えたいのは、中立を強く求める、そうした時代についてである。さまざまな分野を横断して、なぜかこの時代に支配的になっている雰囲気を問題にしたいと思う。今日の雰囲気はいつの時代にも変わらず存在してきたものではない Which leads me to question the world that I see today, and its the question that I feel is the most interesting one out there.
I finished reading the book. I wasn't really thinking of writing another post about the book but I changed my mind. The book says that Foucault once mentioned about his role as below. 人々が、自分で考えているよりもはるかに自由なのだと教えること、人々が自明で真理だと信じているいくつかのテーマが、歴史の特定の時点に作り出されたものであり、このみかけの上での自明性は批判し、破壊することができるものだということを示すことです。それが知識人の役割です。 And I realize that the books, not just his but all those other books as well, are playing this very role for me. It also mentions about the questions that he was trying to answer, and I share the same perspective on the kind of questions that needs to be answered, which is listed as below. - 主体の条件 - どのような知を"真理"として構成し、それを"真理"として確信するのか - 歴史的な条件のもとで、どのような条件において、ある対象が知の対象となりうるか - 主体は真理を獲得したと考えることで、どのような満足と権力を獲得するか Despite how complicated they all sounds, I believe its just saying think yourself, and books will help along the way😆. And I actually find it's something quite interesting to think about. By the way, I always find myself feeling strange yet peaceful like I'm back home listening to those songs from childhood. The song must had been played a lot on the radio back then haha. Its nice to have some place, photos, songs, or really anything you can find peace within🎵.
Hi, here's another book review! I still haven't finished the book yet but I would like to summarized my short take away from it. I won't write all the details as I wrote a lot about it in the past posts. I would just say there was a lot of idea that I was seeking at the moment, and as of this moment. Again, its nice to have them put into words. Even though it was little discouraging and indeed suffocating as quoted below😂. フーコーの権力の分析が深まっていけばいくほど、生の可能性が失われていくような印象すら受ける。権力的な関係のうちでの抵抗の可能性が失われ...権力的な網の目に絡まれとられてしまうような理論の運びである...近代的な社会がまず規律的な権力の社会として捉えられ...社会にふさわしい身体と精神をもつ主体が構成される...これは息がつまるような理論である Also, it was interesting to see the book referring to Louis Althusser as I remember reading his book while I was in college. Seems like I'm coming back and forth haha. Another interesting reference I found is that the book which I just started reading mentions about how its based on Foucault's this and that book. Although I'm still not yet familiar with the idea of discours(言説), I'm willing to take a look into those books so that I can see how it can be apply to Orientalism. Maybe later, once I catch my breathing :) Lastly, there was this quote in the book about the seemingly neutral notion of Orientalism disattached from political discussion. "真の知識"が基本的に非政治的であるとする一般的でリベラルな多数意見というものは、知識の生み出される時点でその環境としてある、たとい目には見えずとも高度に組織化された政治的諸条件を、いかにして覆い隠すものとなっているのか。本書が明らかにしようとしているのはその点である I see the statement is also very true in today's everyday world, and I believe its something that we should carefully consider what kind of knowledge that we are dealing with. Again, this is something that I recognize from Max Weber's Wertfreiheit(没自由). And I'm looking forward to see how the book untangles the seemingly neutral notion of Orientalism as said below. "インドやイギリスに関するあらゆる学問的知識は、総体としての政治的事実によって何らかの意味で色付けされ刻印を押され侵害されているのだ"ということとは...本書でオリエンタリズムに関して私の言わんとするところなのである...なぜなら、人文科学におけるいかなる知識の生産であれ、その著者が人間的主体として周囲の環境に巻き込まれている... That's it for today's post! I wonder if there might be some insights into how Japan is portraited in today's tourism, which I kinda like it haha.