I'm not sure I agree that the subject matter was necessarily Te/Ni. Smith was writing in a complete void of 'economic literature' since he, in many regards, established the field. So he was writing as a moral philosopher, because political economy did not exist as a discipline until he took it up. I think his particular approach demonstrates Te, rather than reflecting the Te nature of the subject. For example, I don't think Marx took a Te approach, and he was arguably also a Classical economist, and the neoclassical approach is certainly not Te driven (I would argue that it is Ti + Ne).
In 'Wealth of Nations', Smith wrote: "In the progress of society, philosophy or speculation becomes, like every other employment, the principal or sole trade of a particular class of citizens. Like every other employment too, it is subdivided into a great number of different branches, each of which affords occupation to a peculiar tribe or class of philosophers; and this subdivision of employment in philosophy...improves dexterity and saves time." I think that depicts his Te approach, in his very definition of economics as a new field of enquiry. (So while I'm not claiming he created 'economics', he did found it as a profession.) I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're calling it a gamma NT field, and I'm saying that he made the field, so if you're seeing it as gamma NT, that should be a stronger indicator that he too is gamma NT.
In any case, the 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' is available in its entirety online: http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/tms/tms-index.htm I personally don't see it as being all that alien or different to 'Wealth of Nations'. I think his philosophical approach was consistent through most of his writing.



Reply With Quote