FILOSOFIA HELENÍSTICA E PENSAMENTO ECONÔMICO: A Mediação do Conceito de “Providência’ — Ihering Guedes Alcoforado

A editora Routledge acaba de lançar The Routledge Handbook of Hellenistic Philosophy editado Kelly Arenson no qual se inclui o artigo de Phillip Mitsis, Hellenistic Philosohpy and the Origins of Modern Economic Thought - um texto “porta de entrada” no processo em curso de resgate da influencia da filosofia helenística no pensamento econômico moderno, em especial dos estóicos e epicureanos.

Com este propósito P Mitsis, inicia chamando atenção para o programa de pesquisa focado na correção do que considera um escanteio da influência helenística no pensamento econômico, em boa parte introduzido por J Schumpeter; isto porque, na sua obra magna de história da analise econômica constata-se um conjunto de lacunas históricas [1], ou seja,

Schumpeter classified several pre-Latin-European scholastic centuries as “blank,” suggesting that nothing of relevance to economics, or for that matter to any other intellectual endeavor, was said or written anywhere else. Such a claim of “discontinuity” is patently untenable. A substantial body of contemporary social thought, including economics, is traceable to Hellenistic, ArabIslamic, and Byzantine “giants.” [BALOGLOU, 2011:9]

Tal procedimento de Schumpter configura um conjunto de lacunas já qualificada nomeada na sua totalidade como o “Schmpeter´s Gap” ou de “the Schumpeterian Great Gap” e que envolve a “exclusão” não apenas da contribuição da filosofia helenística, mas também a romana, a islâmica, judaica e cristã no pensamento econômico original. [1]

Entre as questões pensamento econômico revisitadas por P Mitsis me detenho nesta nota na noção de Providência divina central no pensamento de Adam Smith e recorrente no processo de restabelecimento das pontes entre a Filosofia helenística e o pensamento econômico. [BALOGLOU,2003, 2004, 2007;LESHEM, 2013;29–30]

No caso em tela, em tela P Mitsis uma chama atenção para um escansão do conceito de Providência divina vigente no campo, que marca diferença entre a visão de Deus dos Estóicos — o Deus dos filósofos- que se manifesta na “Suprema mano” de Galiani [2] como na Mão Invisivel de Adam Smith, do outro Deus, o dos Augustinianos/Epicureanos mais adequado aos religiosos[HENGSTMENGEL, 2019; WALSHAM, 2001; FORCE, 2003, 2005]

Indo além do posto por P. Mitsis, chamo atenção para uma qualificação da distinção referida acima e que foi feita por P. Force, a qual coloca de um lado a tradição neo-Estóica da providencia como lei e, do outro a tradição Epicureana/Augustiniana da Providência como milagre[FORCE, 2005:723]

E, assim introduz uma

“[…] the dividing line is between doctrines that describe nature and human history as governed by rules that God himself cannot transgress, and doctrines that leave God free to break his own rules. In the first category of doctrines, which I call neo-Stoic, God’s law is essentially the same thing as Nature’s law. In the second category of doctrines, which I call Epicurean/ Augustinian, there is an element of apparent randomness, because God can decide to break his own rules at any time[FORCE, 2005:723]

E, ainda vai além, ao chamar atenção para a associação da “mão invisível de Adam Smith” com com a mão invisivel de Juptier, as quais tem em comum “acts reliable and consistently”, ficando as diferenças por conta do conhecimento disponível em cada momento histórico:

“Neo-Stoic writers such as Smith postulate a Providence that acts reliably and consistently. This is how I interpret Smith’s comments on ‘the invisible hand of Jupiter’ (Force 2003: 70–1): the Ancients, in their ignorance of physics, saw Jupiter’s visible hand in extraordinary events like thunder and lightning (in other words, they saw thunder and lightning as miraculous events). They did not understand that thunder and lightning are just like rain and fire: they are produced by Jupiter’s invisible hand. In other words, they are natural, non-miraculous events.”

Enquanto que

“The Providence invoked by Epicurean/Augustinian writers such as Bayle or Mandeville is more capricious, and prone to break its own rules (this is the reason for the paradoxical convergence between Augustinians and Epicureans: the emphasis is on the apparent randomness of natural and human events). It is therefore difficult to construct an ‘economic science’ on the kind of anthropology that is characteristic of the Augustinian tradition. [FORCE, 2005:726]

Por fim, vale registrar que na sua pesquisa Force registra que se deparou com uma insperada conexão entre a teoria politica augustianeana e a economia politica do século XVIII.

“[…] the unexpected and counterintuitive connection between Augustinian political theory and the rise of political economy in the eighteenth century (Hirschman 1977, Faccarello 1986). When I looked at things more closely, the story was not quite what I expected. There is a strong Epicurean/Augustinian tradition that endures until the mid-eighteenth century, and provides the philosophical backbone for the polite apology of luxury, whose main representatives are Mandeville, Melon and Voltaire. [FORCE, 2005:725]

Este registro final é relevante, tendo em conta, chamar atenção para uma possibilidade a ser explorada, não apenas no cenário atual que se anuncia de abundante e imprevisível alternativas em suas disrupções, mas principalmente no cenário historico do campo de pensamento econômico no qual se sobressai na Escola de Salamanca a figura de Martin Azpilcueta com seu fertilíssimo Augustianinismo [FERNANDEZ-BOLLO, 2013]

NOTAS

[1] ““The Eastern Empire survived the Western for another 1,000 years, kept going by the most interesting and most successful bureaucracy the world has ever seen. Many of the men who shaped policies in the offi ces of the Byzantine emperors were of the intellectual cream of their times. They dealt with a host of legal, monetary, commercial, agrarian and fi scal problems. We cannot help feeling that they must have philosophized about them. If they did, however, the results have been lost. No piece of reasoning that would have to be mentioned here has been preserved. So far as our subject is concerned we may safely leap over 500 years to the epoch of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), whose Summa Theologica is in the history of thought what the southwestern spire of the Cathedral of Chartres is in the history of architecture.” SCHUMPETER,1954/1994:73–74 apud BALOGLOU, 2011:9]

[2] O procedimento de Schumpeter, no entendimento de P. Mitsis reflete a visão da história do pensamento dominante na sua época que , sob influencia de Hegel depreciava a tradição helenística, o que é problematizável. [FERRO, 2018].

BIBLIOGRAFIA

BALOGLOU, C., (2012) ‘The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World from the Ancient Classical Times through the Hellenistic Times until the Byzantine Times and Arab Islamic World’, in J. G. Backhaus (ed.) Handbook of the History of Economic Thought: Insights on the Founders of Modern Economics. New York: Springer, pp. 7–91

Baloglou, Christos P. (2010) ‘On technological change and stage evolution in the works of Seneca and Adam Smith’, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, III:2, 153–163

BALOGLOU, C.,. (2009) ‘The Reception of the Ancient Greek Economic Ideas by the Romans and Their Contribution to the Evolution of Economic Thought’, in V. Caspari (ed.) Theory and History of the Economy — in the Honor of Bertram Schefold. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag, pp. 191–256.

BALOGLOU, C., (2007) ‘History of Economic Thought: The Schumpeterian “Great Gap”, the “Lost” βyzantine Legacy, and the Literature Gap’, in Church and Society: Orthodox Christian Perspectives, Past Experiences, and Modern Challenges. Studies in Honor of Demetrios J. Constantelos, ed. G. P. Liacopoulos. Boston, MA: Somerset Hall Press, pp. 395–428.

BALOGLOU, C., (2004) ‘Schumpeter’s Gap, Medieval Islamic and Byzantine Thought’, Journal of Oriental and African Studies 12: 231–41.

BALOGLOU, C., (2003) ‘Schumpeter’s Gap and the Economic Thought in Hellenistic Times’, in Joseph Alois Schumpeter: Entrepreneurship, Style and Vision, ed. J. G. Backhaus. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 327–35.

BALOGLOU, C., (2002) ‘Economics and Chrematistics in the Economic Thought of the Stoic Philosophy’, History of Economic Ideas 10(3): 85–101.

BALOGLOU, C., (1999) ‘The Economic Philosophy of the Cynics’, Mésogeios-Méditerranée 4: 132–46.

BALOGLOU, C., (1998) ‘Hellenistic Economic Thought’, in S. Todd Lowry and B. Gordon (eds) Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice. Leiden: Brill, pp. 105–46.

BALOGLOU, C., (2011) ‘The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World from the Ancient Classical Times through the Hellenistic Times until the Byzantine Times and Arab-Islamic World’,in Backhaus, J. G. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of The History of Economic Thought. (Insights on the Founders of Modern Economics). Springer, 2012, 7–91. doi:10.1007/978–1–4419–8336–7_2

BALOGLOU, Christos P.,‘The Reception of the Ancient Greek Economic Ideas by the Romans and Their Contribution to the Evolution of Economic Thought’

D´EMIC, Michael Thomas., (2014) Justice in the Marketplace in Early Modern Spain: Saravia, Villalon and the Religious Origins of Economic Analysis . Lexington Books 2014

ELLIOTT, Mark W., (2015) Providence Perceived Divine Action from a Human Point of View. Ed. De Gruyter, 2015

FERNANDEZ-BOLLO, Eduardo., Conciencia y valor en Martín de Azpilcueta: ¿un agustinismo práctico en la España del siglo xvi? IN Criticon, 20113, n. 118 (Agustin en España (siglos XVI e XVII). pp. 57–69 https://doi.org/10.4000/criticon.310.

FERRO, Bernardo., (2018 )Hegel’s Critique of Stoicism IN MAGEE, Glenn Alexander. (ed.)(2018)Hegel and ancient philosophy: a re-examination. (Series: Routledge studies in nineteenth-century philosophy, 16). Routledge, 2018 pp. 189–201

FORCE, P. (2005). Two concepts of providence and two concepts of pity: A reply to Gilbert Faccarello and Jimena Hurtado. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 12(4), 723–731.

FORCE, P. (2003). Self-Interest before Adam Smith: A Genealogy of Economic Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

HENGSTMENGEL, Joost., Divine Providence in Early Modern Economic Thought. Routledge, 2019

KRAYE, J. (2008) “Moral philosophy,” in C.B. Schmitt, Q. Skinner, E. Kessler and J. Kraye (eds) The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 303–386.

LESHEM, Dotan., (2013) Oikonomia in the age of empires INHistory of the Human Sciences, 2013, 26(1) 29–51

Dotan Leshem (2014) The ancient art of economics, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 21:2, 201–229, DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2012.683032

MEDVED, Michael., God’s Hand on America: Divine Providence in the Modern Era. The Crown Publishing Group

MITSIS, Phillip., Hellenistic Philosphy and the Origins of Modern Economic Thought. IN ARENSON, Kelly., (ed.)The Routledge Handbook of Hellenistic Philosophy. Routledge, 2020

NATALI, C. (1995) “Oikonomia in Hellenistic political thought,” in A. Laks and M. Schofield (eds), Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy — Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 95–128

SCHUMPETER, JA (1954) History of economic analysis. Allen & Unwin, London [reprinted with an Introduction by Perlman M. Routledge, London, 1994]

TSOUNA, V. (2012) Philodemus, On Property Management, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

WALSHAM, Alexandra, Providence in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001 WALSHAM, Alexandra., Providence in Early Modern. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999