-

Smith's self-interest principle always struck me as particularly Te, being expressed in a Ni context. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." The way he states his principles: this is how it is, has the brusque 'reflecting reality unflinchingly' quality I associate with Te. It is framed as an accurate, factual statement. Yet it is provided in a Ni environment: he's in one line penetrating the chaos of humanity by crystalising it into a vast web of momentary interactions that are purposeful. And that purpose is self-interest.
I would struggle to see the pin-factory example as anything but Te. My own reaction to the division of labour principle is that it basically just makes sense and is efficient. The way Smith conceptualises the fragmented production process as nonetheless part of the whole seems like a Ni ability to zoom out, for the purpose of achieving a Te outcome.
In Meghnad Desai’s book ‘Marx’s Revenge’, in the second chapter titled “Adam Smith and the Principles of Social Astronomy”, Desai elaborates on the Classical definition of progress, looking at progress as a theory with regards to justice and in material arts. He identifies that progress has a historical dimension – it “occurs through various stages of modes of subsistence” and takes on a different character depending on his historical context. Smith particularly considered private property rights as evidence of progress, and crafted four stages of mankind as the trajectory of progress. (I don't have the book with me, so I'm relying on my class notes.)
I think this demonstrates using Ni as a mode of accessing and explaining the world. He is able to distill his entire notion of progress (which arguably was his purpose in writing in the first place - to facilitate progress) into a set of observable states (Te) embedded in an abstract time (Ni). He is aware of the long-term implications of human behaviour, yet it was more historically-focused than attempting to predict future human society. His final age of progress - the age of commerce - was the state his society was on the cusp of heading into. Though there is plenty of evidence in 'Wealth of Nations' of his ability to very accurately predict how economic phenomena would unfold (eg. cost/purpose of colonisation - to create markets).
So...that's my argument for LIE.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules