亚当·斯密从弗朗索瓦·魁奈那里学到了什么?

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY Journal of Scottish Philosophy Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.3366/jsp.2020.0266
Toni Vogel Carey
{"title":"亚当·斯密从弗朗索瓦·魁奈那里学到了什么?","authors":"Toni Vogel Carey","doi":"10.3366/jsp.2020.0266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Book IV of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations concerns two rival economic theories, Mercantilism and Physiocracy. The latter, François Quesnay's system, occupies only the ninth and final chapter, and it begins with a stunning dismissal. Yet, fifteen pages later, Smith praises this theory to the skies. That cries out for explanation. Like Mercantilism, Smith's system emphasizes commerce, whereas Quesnay's is confined to agriculture. But like Physiocracy, Smith's system is built on individual liberty, whereas Mercantilism is one of government control. Despite his initial put-down, Smith is naturally inclined more toward Quesnay's philosophy. And the main thesis of my paper is to suggest one reason for this that has not previously been brought to light, and that can explain Smith's extravagant praise for it. Quesnay employs a Newtonian scientific method different from the one emphasized in Smith's early ‘Astronomy’ treatise, a method Smith first prominently introduced a decade after his meetings with Quesnay, in Wealth of Nations and Smith's eulogy for Hume (1776), and in the sixth (1790) edition of his Theory of Moral Sentiments.","PeriodicalId":41417,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scottish Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What did Adam Smith learn from François Quesnay?\",\"authors\":\"Toni Vogel Carey\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/jsp.2020.0266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Book IV of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations concerns two rival economic theories, Mercantilism and Physiocracy. The latter, François Quesnay's system, occupies only the ninth and final chapter, and it begins with a stunning dismissal. Yet, fifteen pages later, Smith praises this theory to the skies. That cries out for explanation. Like Mercantilism, Smith's system emphasizes commerce, whereas Quesnay's is confined to agriculture. But like Physiocracy, Smith's system is built on individual liberty, whereas Mercantilism is one of government control. Despite his initial put-down, Smith is naturally inclined more toward Quesnay's philosophy. And the main thesis of my paper is to suggest one reason for this that has not previously been brought to light, and that can explain Smith's extravagant praise for it. Quesnay employs a Newtonian scientific method different from the one emphasized in Smith's early ‘Astronomy’ treatise, a method Smith first prominently introduced a decade after his meetings with Quesnay, in Wealth of Nations and Smith's eulogy for Hume (1776), and in the sixth (1790) edition of his Theory of Moral Sentiments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Scottish Philosophy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Scottish Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/jsp.2020.0266\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Scottish Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jsp.2020.0266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

亚当·斯密的《国富论》第四卷涉及两种对立的经济理论,重商主义和重商主义。后者,François Quesnay的体系,只占据了第九章,也是最后一章,它以一个惊人的解雇开始。然而,十五页后,史密斯对这一理论赞不绝口。这迫切需要解释。与重商主义一样,史密斯的体系强调商业,而魁奈的体系仅限于农业。但是,就像物理政治一样,史密斯的制度是建立在个人自由的基础上的,而重商主义是政府控制的制度。尽管史密斯最初被贬低,但他自然更倾向于魁奈的哲学。我论文的主要论点是提出一个以前从未被曝光的原因,这可以解释史密斯对它的过分赞扬。魁奈采用了一种牛顿科学方法,与史密斯早期的《天文学》论文中强调的方法不同,史密斯在与魁奈会面十年后首次突出介绍了这种方法,《国富论》和史密斯对休谟的颂词(1776年),以及他的《道德情操论》第六版(1790年)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What did Adam Smith learn from François Quesnay?
Book IV of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations concerns two rival economic theories, Mercantilism and Physiocracy. The latter, François Quesnay's system, occupies only the ninth and final chapter, and it begins with a stunning dismissal. Yet, fifteen pages later, Smith praises this theory to the skies. That cries out for explanation. Like Mercantilism, Smith's system emphasizes commerce, whereas Quesnay's is confined to agriculture. But like Physiocracy, Smith's system is built on individual liberty, whereas Mercantilism is one of government control. Despite his initial put-down, Smith is naturally inclined more toward Quesnay's philosophy. And the main thesis of my paper is to suggest one reason for this that has not previously been brought to light, and that can explain Smith's extravagant praise for it. Quesnay employs a Newtonian scientific method different from the one emphasized in Smith's early ‘Astronomy’ treatise, a method Smith first prominently introduced a decade after his meetings with Quesnay, in Wealth of Nations and Smith's eulogy for Hume (1776), and in the sixth (1790) edition of his Theory of Moral Sentiments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Maximalising Providence: Samuel Rutherford's Augustinian Transformation of Scotist Scholasticism Archibald Pitcairne and the Newtonian Turn of Medical Philosophy Robert Balfour and William Chalmers on the Essence, Existence and Aptness of Accidents New Studies on Seventeenth-Century Scottish Philosophy Direct or Indirect Scotism? Seventeenth-Century Scottish Scholasticism and the Case of James Sibbald (1595–1647)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1