1. Introduction
The present paper aims at scrutinising whether a collective factor whatsoever has been needed
to explain the emergence or persistence of money. To choose Menger (1892) and Searle (1995) for
this discussion has some exemplary value as both are considered to defend opposing positions. As
we shall see Searle considers the presence of collective intentionality as a necessary precondition
for institutions like money to occur, whereas Menger bases his account on the sole pursuit of selfinterest
of the agents. However, we are justified in comparing them because, as Tieffenbach (2010,
191 – 193) points out, both see their task in giving a logical and conceptual account of how
institutions emerge and take for that purpose money as their “favourite example”.
The intention of this paper resides in a direct comparison of both primary texts, evaluate the
comparability and seek actively for shared grounds in their concepts with the following objective:
in the best case reveal aspects of compatibility or coincidence, but at least soften their seeming
opposition. It was though a critical stance toward Menger's postulation that uniquely the selfinterest
of agents made money emerge which motivated this paper. I was convinced that there must
be a collective factor à la Searle in the emergence of money. In this sense, it is moreover a pursuit
of proving my impressions and a defence of Searle rather than a neutral comparison. However, on
my way through dealing with both authors I realised that I was pushing Searle's position quite far –
but still in way he would not disapprove – in order to make it compatible with Menger's account. In
this sense, the loss of strength of Searle's account through my reading allows m...
... middle of paper ...
.... In: Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research, 57 (2), 449 – 458.
SEARLE, John R. (2005): What is an institution? In: Journal of Institutional Economics, 1, 1 – 22.
TIEFFENBACH, Emma (2010): Searle and Menger on Money. In: Philosophy of the Social Sciences,
40 (2), 191 – 212.
VROMEN, Jack (2003): Collective Intentionality, Evolutionary Biology and Social Reality. In:
Philosophical Explorations, 6 (3), 251 – 265.
WHITE, Lawrence H. (1985): Introduction to the NYU Press Edition. In: MENGER, Carl (1883):
Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics.
Translated by: NOCK, Francis J. Edited by SCHNEIDER, Louis (19852). New York University Press,
New York, pp. vii – xviii.
WRAY, Randall L. (2000): Modern money. In: SMITHIN, John (ed.) (2000): What is Money?
Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking, London.
With differing economies and the growth of specie and paper money, Brands argues that the basis of knowledge about the money system of this time lays a foundation for how Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others were able to manipulate the market and gain wealth. Leading into price manipulation by those in corporate
What apparent problem or difficulty or surprising fact is the discussion meant to solve or allay?
By comparing and contrasting these texts we are able to get a better understanding
(3) Adam, Elga (2007) “Reflection and Disagreement” Princeton University Copyright the Authors Journal compilation, Blackwell Publishing, Inc. Pg. 478 – 502.
that it is "the love of money is the root of all evil", a powerful
The following is an adjusted version of an argument I presented in Critical Thinking last semester. My opinion has not changed, just expanded.. :)
It is also believed that wealth should be non-existent. This is only possible if cl...
Meyer , J. W. , and Rowan , B. “ Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth
... trusted statistics and carefully worded statements did not appear as though the author was pushing excessively for his own viewpoint but instead wished to share as many factual statements so the reader could come to their own logical conclusion along with the author giving no room for a reasonable argument that he had not already approached at some point in the chapter.
Nicholas Carr has many strong points in his article. He successfully proves that what he has to say is worthy of his readers time, and that maybe we should all take caution to how much time we spend on the
This essay will explain both sides of the views and using critical thinking will uncover the real message the author intended to portray.
The greatest question many have sought to answer is the creation vs. evolution debate. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we the result of countless mistakes? Does it even matter? The story of money is similar to the story of humanity. Was money created or did it evolve. If it was created we can assume it will die. If money evolved then we can assume the future is unknown. In his book, The Ascent of Money a financial history of the world, Neil Ferguson historic analysis of money answers many of these questions. Ferguson believes money essentially mirrors mankind, magnifying back to us our progress, failures, values and weaknesses.” (The Ascent of Money, 358) The history of money shares many similarities to the history of man; Ferguson parallels between finance and Darwinism, illustrating the natural mechanism of our financial ecosystem that evolves, creates, competes, and dies.
Heilbroner, Robert. "The Economic Problem." The Making of the Economic Society. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1993. pp. 1-15
thereby attempts in the Appendix to argue on the following crucial points: 1) The reason
Shirur, Anand. "Evolution of Money by Anand Shirur." Evolution of Money. 07 Dec. 2013. .