Commentary: In Response to the Paper by Oran R. Young, How Can International Regimes Solve Environmental Problems? (see pp. 9–29)
The terrain, wonderfully covered by Oran Young, is a dichotomized world consisting of stories wishing to be theories. On the one side we find the economizers – disembedded consequentialists acting according to something called ‘collective action theory.’ On the other side we have the socially embedded citizens of the world intent on practicing what is good (or right). Young helps us to see that both ‘theories’ (and I use that term with great resistance) are ample enough to accommodate almost anything that might appear threatening. We have, in other words, accommodating metaphors whose adherents can pick and choose among confirming signals (assiduously watched for), and can fail to notice disconfirming signals with alacrity. Philosophers would mumble something about verificationist tendencies. As Shackle would put it, ‘what is seen is built upon what is thought (Shackle 1992, p. 66).’ To be fair here, economists have perfected the craft of seeing only what is thought so my comment should not be considered a criticism of political scientists and others who worry about international regimes.
Visa-Free Movement and Intercultural Communication: Expectations and Experiences of Kenyans in Ghana
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Peirce on the Summum Bonum and the Unlimited Community; Ayres on "The Criterion of Value"
This article is not concerned with “A Theory of Value” or “The Theory of Value.” It is strictly limited to a discussion of the concepts specified in its title and consists of three parts. The first of these is concerned with ideas of Charles Sanders Peirce and is based upon a study of his published and unpublished papers contained in the eight-volume edition of his Collected Works.1 The second part is concerned with ideas of Clarence Ayres, primarily those presented in his Toward A Reasonable Society [Ayres 1961]. The third part contains some brief concluding remarks.