Amartya Sen

這是一本能夠改變觀念的書，而非僅僅傳達知識的書，由印度學者Amartya Sen發表的Development as Freedom，認為讓人民享有基本的自由，是經濟發展的要素；更進一步衍申，經濟發展本身並非我們努力的目標，而是為了自由、人權等普世價值。 show more 亞理斯多德曾說道：「財富並非我們追求的善，它僅止於有用、且是為了別的緣故而已」。經濟、發展、財富本身並非目的，它們的用途在於讓我們達到實質的自由，包括平等、人權、弱者得到照顧，讓每個人都有能力去作他認為有價值的事情，不受壓迫與剝削等等。Amartya Sen透過實證與人文精神，精闢地闡述自由的重要性。 這本書改變我看事情的視野，也深化我去看問題的本質，不會讓101大樓或火箭昇空去誤導我們的觀念，因為我們該評價的不是財富，而是分享、慈悲、為他人著想。（中譯本由商周出版） show less

Noble prizewinner in economics Sen debunks the planks of the Hindu Nationalist platform one by one, revealing the historical depth of diverse and open public debate in India beginning with the open questions about cosmic origin in the Vedas. Sen was awarded the Noble Prize for his work understanding why famines occur even in years with plentiful harvests. One wonderful echo in this particular book is his assertion that democracies do not suffer famine. Famine is in part a product of closed, show more vanguardist governments.

The prose isn't always graceful, which is a bit of a surprise considering the ammount of writing Sen produces. He does do an amazing job balancing a sort objective-humanist approach to research with a personal dedication to the issues.

One thing among many I appreciate about Sen is his presenting as a given that an economy that doesn't serve all its members is not in good working order.

More particularly, his insights into Indian politics and economic development are invaluable to anyone wishing to understand the events of the past couple of decades there, especially Westerners. Especially Western progressives, who can easily get caught in the thought-trap that little they know qualifies them to speak about justice in a culture so different from their own. show less

This book along with Appiah's Cosmopolitanism heavily shaped my opinions regarding identity. Sen's argument basically rests on two pillars. 1) Human beings do not have a singular identity but overlapping, contrasting and plural identities. 2) Identity is not discovered, immutable natural fact, but the choice of people. To the first point, Sen points to the conceptional errors of categorizing people in one box (he has a lot to say about Huntington's Clash of the Civilizations). He argues that show more these boxes almost always reduce the diversity found within cultures and do not adequately account for the historical ebb and flow of cultures mingling and adapting to each other. Singular identity classifications are inadequate in describing people. More importantly this singular identity thesis lends itself to sectarian violence. Intriguers take emphasize one identity in order to foment violence against other groups, who lose their shared identities. Sen argues that both intriguers and good intentioned scholars fall into this trap and perpetuate this conception and dangerous idea. He applies this to post colonial anti-west rhetoric, Islamic fundamentalism, and well intentioned government programs seeking to "grow" federated communities. Secondly, Sen argues that identity is choice, we may be constrained by factors beyond our control, but ultimately we choose what identity to partake in (that of culture, profession, religion..) and what weight to put on each identity. He argues that we should have the freedom to choose our identities rather than be forced to allow anyone's choice be stifled in name of tradition or cultural "diversity". With any luck, Sen's ideas will be influential and change our ways of seeing identity. Definitely theoretical, but hints at the world we can become. show less

The overarching ideas in this book are solid. Sen argues that individual freedom is both the means and the end of economic development, and that development shouldn’t simply be measured by Gross National Product or absolute wealth levels. His economic ideas are an unexpected synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx (amongst others) that result in what I’d call gentle capitalism. I appreciate both the evidence he supplies and his careful analyses of opposing viewpoints.

Unfortunately, like show more his biggest influences, Sen has an unrealistically rosy view of human nature. We humans may not be inherently nasty or selfish, but neither are we perfectly rational beings who always know what is best for ourselves and our neighbors. There is certainly plenty of room for improvement in the world, and I’m confident that the world is improving now thanks in part to people like Sen. However, he too often seems to ignore the difference between the way the world SHOULD be and the way the world CAN be. show less