Is Heraclitean spirit present in contemporary evolutionary socioeconomic theory?
Abstract
This paper posits that Heraclitus’ work constitutes a somewhat underappreciated foundation in the study of socioeconomic thought. It then differentiates his perspective from earlier economic thought in ancient societies and critically examines the surviving fragments of his work. The dialectical approach to phenomena, established by the Heraclitean spirit, has inspired contributions to socioeconomic thought that increasingly shape contemporary economic thinking. This historical trajectory is examined elliptically, emphasising its importance in understanding today’s complex realities.
Keywords: Heraclitus; economic thought; dialectics; Heraclitean spirit.
This is an interesting article, which recovers the economic ideas of Heraclitus and show how relevant they can be today. I think the article should be published, but I have a few comments.
On the relationship between ancient civilizations and economic thought, it must be noted that Ancient China and Ancient India do have a lot of untranslated ideas, but some are available. Cheng, Peach and Wang (2014) have published a collection of ancient Chinese writers who wrote on economic topics; Deodhar (2018) has written of evidences of economic discussions as far as the Rig Vedas, while Thanawala (1997) and Sihag (2009) have written about Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which, although not as old as Heraclitus’s writings, it points to a much older tradition of “rational” (quotation marks needed) economic management.
As for Heraclitus himself, the only thing missing is a better contextualization. His debate with Parmenides is probably the oldest scientific debate registered. And this debate still echo today, especially in economics, with the neoclassical theory that prefers static models, and others, non- or semi-neoclassical that prefers dynamic models. I suggest taking a look at Cameron (2008) and Kovács (2019), for more Heraclitus and economics. But the recovery of Heraclitus’s economic ideas is welcome, because even an important scholar such as Todd Lowry paid attention to him.
The epigraphs can better indicate that it’s Heraclitus’s words.
It would be better to let the conclusion be its own section. Plus a mention to Heraclitus in the conclusion can be useful, along with the spirit he inaugurated.
References
Cameron, Gregory. Oikos and economy: the Greek legacy in economic thought. PhaenEx, v. 3, n. 1, 2008.
Cheng Li, Terry Peach and Wang Fang. The history of ancient Chinese economic thought. Routledge, 2014.
Deodhar, Satish Y. Indian Antecedents to Modern Economic Thought. Working paper, no. 2018-01-02. Indian Institute of Management, 2018.
Kovács, Olivér. Grounding complexity economics in framing modern governance. Acta Oeconomica, v. 69, n. 4, 2019.
Sihag, Balbier S. An introduction to Kautilya and his Arthashastra. Humanomics, v. 25, n. 1, 2009.
Thanawala, Kishor. Kautilya’s ‘Arthasastra’: a neglected work in the history of economic thought. In Betsy Price (ed.). Ancient economic thought. Routledge, 1997.