The Art of Economics

Often, when I was an under-graduate student, people would express surprise at my chosen majors. They often wondered how I could possibly be interested in two such different subjects as economics and philosophy. The reasoning behind this is that economics is all about graphs, numbers, and equations, and can't possibly have anything to do with philosophy. I would patiently respond that there are areas in economics which are more theoretical, and that's what I enjoy most.

But as it turns out, I was being way too conservative in my explanation of the fit of philosophy and economics. In the beginning of economics, these two areas weren't even seperate - oeconomics (the Greek term phrased by Xenophon) was just a small area of economics. In fact, the "father" of economics, Adam Smith, was the chair of moral philosophy at a college in Scotland for a good chunk of his life.

In fact, I'd say that economics needs to move from being the 'science' that is has become (I use quotes because the 'true scientists' of physics and chemistry don't like us calling economics a science), back to the 'art' that it could be (I use quotes because I'm sure painters wouldn't like me calling economics an art). Before Smith could even think of writing his treatise on wealth, he had to start with a treatise on human nature. Unfortunately, it seems like most economists like to think that Smith got it right regarding human nature (the whole invisible hand of self-interest), but even so, philosophy has a lot to offer economics, most of which gets marginalized when people assume that economics is only concerned with numbers, equations, and graphs (as fun as those graphs are).

Can anybody tell that I'm writing a paper on this?