3
   

Does "which" refer to "human nature" here?

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar, Language, English As A Second Language
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
oristarA
 
Reply Thu 1 May, 2014 09:59 pm

Context:

OF OF THE PRINCIPLE THE PRINCIPLE WHICH GIVES OCCASION CASION TO THE DIVISION OF LABOUR

THIS DIVISION OF LABOUR, from which so many advantages are de-
rived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which
foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occa-
sion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence
of a certain propensity in human nature, which has in view no
such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange
one thing for another.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 705 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
View best answer, chosen by oristarA
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 01:01 am
"Which" refers to "a certain propensity in human nature".
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 08:13 am
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

"Which" refers to "a certain propensity in human nature".



Thanks.
But then it is hard to understand "which has in view no such extensive utility".
It looks having such utility to me.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 08:29 am
"has in view" - to "have in view" is, here, an idiom meaning "intend" or "desire". The writer is saying that the division of labour is caused by the human propensity to barter or exchange. That propensity does not have as an objective the greater good of mankind.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 08:47 am
@contrex,

Quote:
That propensity does not have as an objective the greater good of mankind.


or more specifically, according to this text, the objective of general opulence.
i.e. increased and general wealth.

Is this from Adam Smith?
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 08:53 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:

Is this from Adam Smith?


They are the opening words of the second chapter of "The Wealth of Nations".
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 11:30 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:


Quote:
That propensity does not have as an objective the greater good of mankind.


or more specifically, according to this text, the objective of general opulence.
i.e. increased and general wealth.

Is this from Adam Smith?


Yes.
But the Moral Law that specifically belongs to Human and God has the objective of general opulence (wellbeing for all). So it is hard to understand the text.
contrex
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 01:33 pm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
But the Moral Law that specifically belongs to Human and God has the objective of general opulence (wellbeing for all). So it is hard to understand the text.


The text asserts that the division of labour is a consequence of the human propensity to exchange and barter (among other things, time and labour), and that any 'general opulence' is a by-product, not the main objective. Scholars have traditionally perceived a conflict between The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations; the former emphasizes sympathy for others, while the latter focuses on the role of self-interest. Some scholars of Smith's work have argued that no contradiction exists.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 06:58 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

oristarA wrote:
But the Moral Law that specifically belongs to Human and God has the objective of general opulence (wellbeing for all). So it is hard to understand the text.


The text asserts that the division of labour is a consequence of the human propensity to exchange and barter (among other things, time and labour), and that any 'general opulence' is a by-product, not the main objective. Scholars have traditionally perceived a conflict between The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations; the former emphasizes sympathy for others, while the latter focuses on the role of self-interest. Some scholars of Smith's work have argued that no contradiction exists.



I wonder where we can find the " no contradiction" arguments by the scholars.
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 12:05 pm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
I wonder where we can find the " no contradiction" arguments by the scholars.

Wight, Jonathan B. Saving Adam Smith. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2002.

Robbins, Lionel. A History of Economic Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Brue, Stanley L., and Randy R. Grant. The Evolution of Economic Thought. Mason: Thomson Higher Education, 2007.

Ekelund, R & Hebert, R 2007, A History of Economic Theory and Method 5th Edition. Waveland Press



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Expert help needed: pronoun form following main verb before a gerund - Question by adavis444
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Do you understand what "Transition overground" means? - Question by Alexander7
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
Is this paragraph incomprehensible? Would you suggest an edit? - Question by tamara123454
Does this sentence make any sense in English? - Question by estherara
Could someone review my assignment? - Question by kair0s
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does "which" refer to "human nature" here?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 04:47:37
▲ ▼