What Does Adam Smith Mean by the “Invisible Hand?”

Adam Smith(1723-1790), was an important British economist and figure of the Scottish Enlightenment period. Smith further developed the concept of economics and was a pretty important influence to the founders of America. One of his economic concepts is known as the “Invisible Hand.” What does Smith mean by his concept of the “Invisible Hand?”

The “Invisible Hand,” in Smith’s definition is the demands of society, or the trading market, which depends on self interest. Smith stated that when someone is led by their self-interest, they usually end up helping others in the outcome, which is the “Invisible Hand,” guiding them. This is only really possible in a free market society. Thus, this is what Adam Smith meant by the “Invisible Hand.”

Is There a Right of “Free Speech,” in the Abstract, or is the Question of Free Speech a Root Matter of Property Rights?

Free speech is a highly talked about and essential human right. There is much debate still on the following points: is free speech acceptable in all situations? Should it not be allowed in certain situations? Etc, but overall regardless of all the debate and controversy surrounding it most people can agree that it is still an essential human right. A question that comes into regard is that: is the question of free speech a root matter of property rights?

Before answering this question I will give this scenario. Say if you were at a restaurant enjoying your meal and a bunch of protestors came into the restaurant to protest, would that be acceptable? Well you most likely would be appalled in that situation, and hope that either the restaurant kicks them out or the police are called. But does this situation violate the right of free speech? This restaurant is owned by somebody, it is private property, and has its own set of rules, which most definitely does not include allowing a bunch of angry protestors in. These protestors would be kicked out of the restaurant for being disruptive and loud, not for what they were protesting for. Which is why I believe that the right of free speech is a root matter of property rights, and would be inconsistent if it was separate from the concept of property rights. Free speech and property rights go hand in hand.

This answer I gave, being that free speech and property rights go hand in hand, if more individuals understood that concept the concept of free speech would be far less controversial and more straightforward to understand. Thus, this is why free speech is a root matter of property rights.

The Views of the French Materialists 

During the Enlightenment period in Europe people were exploring new ideas and views; some of those new ideas were relatively sound in nature and others were not. One of those new ideas was the belief of materialism which began to emerge in the 18th century, specifically in France. The individuals who had this belief of materialism are known as materialists. But what is materialism, and what were the views of the materialists, specifically the French materialists?

Materialism is the view that the human body is like a machine, that is in design only able to follow its nature. Because the human body is like a machine it does not have a soul, and is technically an animal, without a free will. The only difference between a human and an animal is that a human has purpose. In short, these were some of the views of the French Materialists.

How Does the View of Ethical Cause and Effect in History in Works and Days Compare With the View in Eumenides?

Ancient Greek literature usually contained tales regarding the Greek deities or the supernatural, which gave these stories a sense of ethical cause and effect. Two examples of ancient Greek literature are: Works and Days, by Hesiod, and Eumenides, by Aeschylus. Both of these pieces of literature revolve around an ethical debate, which involves the supernatural, also because both of these stories revolve around some form of an ethical debate both have views on ethical cause and effect in history. But how do these separate views from these two pieces of literature compare with each other?

Works and Days, by Hesiod was written by Hesiod to his brother Perses, after his brother had won in a legal case over their father’s will, and had received the whole said inheritance. Hesiod explained to his brother the importance of good, how to turn his life around, and other advice, including advice on who to marry, or how important hard work is. This piece of literature is Hesiod’s way of scolding his brother for “stealing,” his inheritance, but also providing “useful,” lessons for his brother, to heed to. It explains how Perses can live a better life.

Eumenides is the third of a series of tragic plays by Aeschylus. Eumenides tells the tale of the aftermath of Orestes murdering his mother and avenging his father’s death. The first play of this series Agamemnon, is where this whole conflict begins, with Agamemnon, Orestes’ father sacrificing his own daughter, this lead to him being murdered by his wife. In the second play, Libation Bearers, Orestes returns home from exile just in time for his father’s funeral; he and his sister Electra decide to avenge their father’s death, after being told to do so by Apollo. Orestes ends up killing his mother and her lover who was also involved in the killing of his father. In Eumenides, after killing his mother Orestes is being pursued by the Furies. The Furies were Greek mythological creatures that the Greeks feared; they all punished crime doers in one form or another. These Furies wanted Orestes to pay for killing his mother.

Orestes turns to Apollo, who was the one who had told him to do the deed. Orestes thus goes to the temple of Athena; Athena aids him by calling on a court case in Athens that was made up of mortals. The Furies had caught up to him and Orestes was in deep trouble, but he did end up winning the case and his set free from the torment of the Furies. The Furies are appeased by Athena granting them sacrifices, and rituals done in their favor. The Furies in this story are the givers of negative sanctions, they punish crimes. 

Now that there is a clear summary of both pieces of literature, how does the view of ethical cause and effect in history in Works and Days’, Compare with the Furies View in Eumenides? In Works and Days, Hesiod explains to his brother on how to live a good life, and how to make the right decisions; to work hard. He shows examples of cause and effect with examples of what would happen if Perses his brother was to do the right thing or the bad one. The view of the Furies in Eumenides, is that of punishment or negative sanctions; that if one does a bad deed such as killing their mother they must pay for it, which is their view of cause and effect.

Ethics, sanctions, and cause and effect are three things I have noticed quite prevalent in the ancient Greek literature pieces I have read so far in my life, and Eumenides is no exception. The Furies in this ancient Greek play inflicts the negative sanctions, which is why they play an important role in the cause and effect of the story. The story Works and Days, though much different, contains its own view of cause and effect. Thus one may be able to compare the two views and see how different and similar they are.

The Main Ideas We Associate with the Enlightenment 

The Enlightenment was a period of western history that took place in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was a period of philosophical and intellectual study. There were many new ideas that came out of the period; some were influenced by old ideas and others were not influenced by the old. But what were some of the main ideas we associate with the Enlightenment?

There were many new ideas that came out of the Enlightenment but this essay would be much too long if I covered the majority of them. Some of the main ideas we associate with this period include: reason, skepticism of inherited traditional institutions, and the separation between science and religion. Beliefs such as deism(the belief that God is real but does not intervene in history), became more popular. Also to note, Enlightenment thinkers had more of a confidence towards human nature.

The Enlightenment period was a time of scientific trust, and the leaving behind of certain religious teachings and rituals. Overall this period of history was a time when man began to find his own beliefs instead of just following the beliefs and institutions of the old. Thus, these are some of the main ideas we associate with the enlightenment.

Science vs. Religion

Recent historians of science have revisited the traditional version of the Scientific Revolution and have disputed the standard claim that religion and science were locked in a titanic struggle. What is some of the evidence these scholars have brought forth?

The period of the Scientific Revolution also known as the Enlightenment era was a period of time when individuals began to explore science instead of just relying on Christianity. But that did not mean that these scientists at the time left Christianity completely behind, in fact many of these scientists were actually Christians themselves.

But some of the evidence that modern historians have pointed out includes the truth that people during the Enlightenment began to come up with their own ideas and beliefs that were not necessarily related to Christianity. Also people at the time began to look for truths instead of just relying on the bible for truths. Thus, this was some of the evidence historians of science have brought forth.

How Does Rothbard Defend the Idea of Self-Ownership

Murray Rothbard(1926-1995), was an American economist and political theorist, who founded the Mises Institute. Rothbard discussed quite in depth the idea of self-ownership, and defended it greatly. How does Rothbard defend the idea of self-ownership?

He believed quite strongly that 100% self-ownership is the only defensible philosophical idea. He showed and explained three alternative examples which he used to explain the reason why he was defending the concept of self-ownership, that it truly was the only defensible philosophical idea. In short, this was how Rothbard defended the idea of self-ownership.

My Fall 2021 Reads/ Update

Hello everyone. I guess to start I have not done a post like this in a long time, which makes me slightly rusty. I need to get back into the swing of writing posts for personal enjoyment. But regardless I guess I will give the life update.

In September I took another CLEP exam, which went well, I passed yay! This CLEP process is going slowly that’s for sure, but I’m getting there. I’m planning to do more of these exams in 2022 when I will be finishing some of my school courses. On the note of school I am going to be graduating soon, probably in the next eighteen months or so, which is a terrifying and exciting thought, since I started this blog when I was still transitioning from middle school to high school. Lately I have been getting the unusual feeling of, “what am I going to do with my life after school?” I wonder if any of you guys who are nearing an end to your education process is feeling the same. It will be a weird transition from doing something I have done for ten years of my life to no longer doing that thing.

Colleges! Oh my gosh, that is another thing that is coming to the picture in my life. Even though I am Canadian I will probably have to attend an American College that provides online courses and degrees, just because of the path I am taking with CLEP. I never thought I would looking for Colleges but here I am. But on the note of what I want to do in College, I plan on getting BA, than eventually becoming a holistic nutritionist, which is something that has always interested me since I work for a holistic nutritionist myself.

But other than school and getting ready for the new chapters of my life, as of now I am just getting ready for Christmas, which I am already so excited for! I cannot wait to get fully into the Christmas spirit. Ahhh! I’m just so excited! Other than those things my life is pretty much unchanged so I guess that’s my life update. Moving onto my Fall 2021 reads.

Fall was a period for me when I got back into my swing of reading, which is something I am on and off with. That whole period I was able to find some pretty interesting books to pass the time, which hadn’t happened in awhile.

The books I read this fall were:

1: The Six of Crows duology, by Leigh Bardugo. Oh my goodness I cannot say enough good things about this series, it’s just so good! Fantasy is a genre that I am not really big on, but this series might of changed my mind a bit on the genre. I watched the TV show Shadow and Bone, earlier this year, which is based off of the book series Shadow and Bone, and Six of Crows. Also quick side note, I will forever ship Kaz and Inej. LOL

2: A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith. I wasn’t expecting much, but I was blown away! It was just a very good coming of age novel, which kept me hooked throughout the entire book. The characters in this book seemed so realistic, and my heart really warmed up to them. Even though it was written in the 40s and was set during the early 20th century the novel really talked about real issues, and things that usually are not discussed in older novels which was quite refreshing.

3: East of Eden by John Steinbeck. This was an interesting novel to say the least. East of Eden, is a biblical allegory that contains the allegory on the biblical story of Cain and Abel. It also contains allegories of good and evil, while all being set in California during the late 19th and early 20th century. Overall I had a more difficult time getting into this one, but by the end of it I was thoroughly embedded.

Regardless of me enjoying one novel over the other I recommend all of these books. Definitely recommend not reading East of Eden unless you are fifteen or older since in contains some very jarring and mature details that are not exactly suitable for someone younger. The other three though I would say are great books for teens of all ages.

I guess I ought to close the post now. Before I do I hope you all are doing well, and thank you for reading.

-Dreamer

What Would Have Been Orestes Proper Course of Action, had He Been Alive Today?

Orestes, the son of Agamemnon, is the main character of the ancient Greek play, Libation Bearers, which was written by a man named Aeschylus. This play was the sequel to the play Agamemnon. This play recounts the events after the tragic end of Agamemnon in the previous play. To recap Agamemnon had sacrificed his own daughter to be able to sail to Troy, this in turn led his wife to murder him after he returned home from Troy. Orestes at the time was exiled, but does return home to visit his father’s grave; there he reunites with his sister Electra. This leads to a course of events which leaves the question: what would have been Orestes proper course of action, had he been alive today in the modern world?

After this reunion Orestes and Electra both relate greatly over their resentment towards their mother, and her lover. They both decide to avenge their father’s death, by murdering their mother, and her lover who also happened to be their grandfather on their father’s side. Also to note Orestes did not really have a choice when it came to this plot since the Oracle of Delphi told him that if he did not do this he himself would face judgment for his father’s death. To do so Orestes disguises as someone else and Electra behaves as though nothing has happened. This ends up being a success and Orestes kills his mother and grandfather. 

Nowadays this situation would be completely different. For example in ancient Greece there was no law enforcement like it is today. If Orestes was around today he would have probably gone to the authorities to report his mother and his grandfather, for his father’s murder, if he found the proper evidence. Instead of going ahead and murdering them Orestes most likely will look for evidence against his mother and grandfather. But if he did choose to kill his mother and grandfather which would be a pretty unlikely situation today, that would be much harder than it would have been in ancient Greece, since there would be the law enforcement to worry about and covering up the murder, so not to be caught. Overall I believe a modern Orestes would most likely report his mother instead of murdering her, since that is the more logical and appropriate action to take.

Ancient Greek plays are a unique area of literature with rather insane, absurd story lines, and mythological tales; the play Libation Bearers, is no exception. The main character of Libation Bearers, Orestes, if he was a man of today would have behaved much differently in handling the situation of his father’s murder. Thus, this would have most likely been Orestes proper course of action had he been alive today.

What was the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian View of the Universe and How did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton Undermine it and Institute an Alternative?

Throughout history people have been rethinking old ideas and discovering that those old ideas are false or true. Something that was in debate during the 17th century was the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view of the universe, which brought forth many important discussions and questions. But what was the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view of the universe? Also how did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton who were important scientific figures at the time undermine this view and institute an alternative?

The Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view of the universe is the view that the earth is at the center of the universe, and that the sun and all the other planets revolve around it. This view was widely believed before it was disproved, and was created by individuals such as Aristotle and Ptolemy. The way that this view of the universe was undermined by individuals such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton was by using scientific observation, research, and other methods. These individuals were able to discover reasons on why the old view of the universe was false. 

Scientific discoveries have been occurring since the beginning of time; something that involves discovering these new things in science is disproving old scientific theories. The Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view of the universe was a view that was held by many for centuries until figures such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton undermined it, and proved it to be false.