Homo oeconomicus". Paradigma, critiche, revisioni

Pantaleoni and Pareto re-established economic theory on the basis of <i>homo oeconomicus</i> which, despite criticisms, went on to become a strangely popular concept, not only among economists, but even in common parlance, where it has assumed a confusing variety of meanings. With a view...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Sergio Caruso
Format: eBook
Language:No linguistic content
Published: Firenze University Press 2012
Series:Studi e saggi
Subjects:
Online Access:
Collection: Directory of Open Access Books - Collection details see MPG.ReNa
LEADER 01940nma a2200277 u 4500
001 EB001980993
003 EBX01000000000000001143895
005 00000000000000.0
007 cr|||||||||||||||||||||
008 210512 ||| zxx
020 |a 9788866551072 
020 |a 978-88-6655-107-2 
100 1 |a Sergio Caruso 
245 0 0 |a Homo oeconomicus". Paradigma, critiche, revisioni  |h Elektronische Ressource 
260 |b Firenze University Press  |c 2012 
300 |a 1 electronic resource (194 p.) 
653 |a Philosophy / bicssc 
041 0 7 |a zxx  |2 ISO 639-2 
989 |b DOAB  |a Directory of Open Access Books 
490 0 |a Studi e saggi 
500 |a Creative Commons (cc), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 
028 5 0 |a 10.36253/978-88-6655-107-2 
856 4 2 |u https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/49547  |z DOAB: description of the publication 
856 4 0 |u https://www.fupress.com/redir.ashx?RetUrl=2379_21435.pdf  |7 0  |x Verlag  |3 Volltext 
082 0 |a 100 
520 |a Pantaleoni and Pareto re-established economic theory on the basis of <i>homo oeconomicus</i> which, despite criticisms, went on to become a strangely popular concept, not only among economists, but even in common parlance, where it has assumed a confusing variety of meanings. With a view to setting things in order, this book distinguishes: the <i>methodological hypotheses</i>, which could possibly be corrected on the basis of new economic psychology; the <i>weak anthropologies</i>, retrievable as 'given abstractions' within typical contexts; and finally the <i>extreme versions</i>, that reduce human nature to absolute egoism. The author makes a radical criticism of the latter, drawing upon the extensive tools derived from psychology, philosophical anthropology and political philosophy, and thus succeeds in demonstrating their lack of empirical foundation, their conceptual inconsistency and their ideological dangerousness.