"One would be lucky to find advocates of social justice in the academy who are familiar with the name ‘Hayek’, let alone those who have read him". No. The Use Of Knowledge in Society is required reading in phil econ and phil social science more generally.http://quillette.com/2018/04/15/stifling-uniformity-literary-theory/ …
-
Show this thread
-
I think Burkean conservativism is under-taught (http://sootyempiric.blogspot.com/2016/12/conservative-under-representation-in.html …) but it's bananas to say that libertarian thought is under-represented or that people aren't aware of it. Relative to the population its massively over-represented would be my guess, similar to Marxism.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
...Actually I read on, this is just agitprop not worth arguing with. Quillette sometimes posts serious, interesting, thoughtful pieces and sometimes stuff saying literary academics are all pseudo-Marxists so hostile to the Enlightenment; i.e. just conservative rage machine fluff.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Is it just that they break this out when they have a slow news day or something?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @lastpositivist
I think I agree that few people read Hayek. People think they know what Hayek said, but really they know Friedman...so they miss out on the best parts of his philosophy of science. (I didn’t read the OP, in light of your comments)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Ah you should give it a read, maybe I misjudged. Definitely the case that Friedman (esp. that essay on instrumentalism) is read. But my strong impression is: Use of Knowledge is a pieces which, like, it counts against you not to know, in the Polite Society of phil social science.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.