PARADOXES OF F. H. KNIGHT'S METHODOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.32324/2412-8945-2021-3-20-27
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to show the limitations and denote the heuristic potential of F. Knight’s methodological ideas concerning the philosophical and methodological underpinnings of economic science, the human model in economics and the concept of the social ideal. In our view, the main paradox of the methodology of F. Knight is associated with the understanding of human behavior and the search for a balance of the basic contradictions of science, philosophy and life itself in the context of these reflections: abstract and concrete, objective and subjective, certainty and uncertainty. It is difficult for one person to complete such a search, but in the process it is possible to open up prospects for new answers and new “horizons of questioning”.
About the Author
V. N. Rogozhnikova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Varvara N. Rogozhnikova, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor
Moscow
References
1. Boid R. Vvedenie k novomu izdaniyu, Nait F. Etika konkurentsii, Moscow, 2009, pp. 10—28.
2. Kleiner G. B. Den' i noch' v ekonomicheskoi teorii Frenka Naita, Nait F. Etika konkurentsii, Moscow, 2009, pp. 4—9.
3. Kovalev A. A. “Robinzonada” kak metodologicheskii priem v ekonomicheskoi nauke, Problemy sovrem. Ekonomiki, 2008, no. 2 (26), pp. 54—58.
4. Musikhin G. I. Ocherki teorii ideologii, Moscow, Pabl. Izd. dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki, 2013.
5. Nait F. Etika konkurentsii, Moscow, EKOM, 2009.
6. Polan'i K. Nasha ustarevshaya rynochnaya mental'nost', “Velikaya transformatsiya” Karla Polan'i: proshloe, nastoyashchee, budushchee / pod red. R. M. Nureeva, Moscow, GU VShE, 2007, pp. 29—37.
7. Seligmen B. Frenk Nait i abstraktsionizm, Osnovnye techeniya so-vremennoi ekonomicheskoi mysli, Moscow, Progress, 1968.
8. Gonce R. A. Frank H. Knight on social control and the scope and method of economics, Southern Economic Journal, 1972, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 547—558.
9. Hart J. Terence Hutchison and Frank Knight: a reappraisal of their 1940—1941 exchange, Journal of Economic Methodology, 2010, vol. 17, iss. 4, pp. 359—373.
10. Hodgson G. M. Frank Knight as an institutional economist, Economics Broadly Considered: Essays in Honor of Warren J. Samuels, Biddle, J. E., J. B. Davis and S. G. Medema (eds), London, Routledge, 2001, pp. 61—89.
11. Hutchison T. W. The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory: A Reply to Professor Knight, Journal of Political Economy, 1941, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 372—350.
12. Kern W. S. The heterodox economics of “the most orthodox of orthodox economists”: Frank H. Knight, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 1997, vol. 56, iss. 3, pp. 319—330.
13. Knight F. H. Economics at its best, The American Economic Review, 1926, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 51—58.
14. Knight F. H. The nature of economic science in some recent discussion, The American Economic Review, 1934, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 225—238.
15. McKinney J., Frank H. Knight on uncertainty and rational action, Southern Economic Journal, 1977, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1438—1452.
16. Sally R. The Political Economy of Frank Knight: Classical Liberalism from Chicago, Constitutional Political Economy, 1997, vol. 8, pp. 123—13.
Review
For citations:
Rogozhnikova V.N. PARADOXES OF F. H. KNIGHT'S METHODOLOGY. Territory Development. 2021;(3 (25)):20-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32324/2412-8945-2021-3-20-27
Views:
263
Email this article 