It never occurred to me that one could think of concentration as a form of redistribution, but just not egalitarian. Thanks for that. I have to agree with your argument about neoliberalism entailing redistribution in the form of concentration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO7vFDfhDHw&ab_channel=BruceSpringsteenVEVO

A hidden gem from The Boss

In relation to the Original Post: I think we can add one more question - "What conceptions of wealth drive today's economic activity--big businesses, small businesses, and other forms of value-generating work/labor?"

I say this because the ongoing pandemic has brought questions such as redistribution of wealth, and nationalization of healthcare, education, and sanitation into greater focus. The latter, however, may not be the answer, even if it is well-intentioned, but it does highlight the fact that governments simply need to improve healthcare, sanitation, and education spending. How do we do that effectively, and how can the debates surrounding redistribution be channeled to that end?

Today, there is also the tendency to regard nationalization and privatization of industries and services as efforts aimed at redistribution. This is not so at all. An industry can be privatized or nationalized without entailing redistribution. The processes don't necessarily imply each other. In particular, the proliferation of IMF-driven neoliberal economic policies has engendered the privatization of several essential industries and services across countries, and this is often done in the name of economic growth (as one can notice, itself a dubious concept nowadays; claims about promoting economic growth also tend to to be tautological). Nonetheless, it is also presented as an inclusive economics and policy approach. In reality, however, the policies mostly embrace the trickle-down approach, which is neither all that inclusive or a redistribution effort for that matter. It mostly only results in concentration of wealth.

When I say introspection is inevitable, I mean that it is an essential feature of any kind of conscious thinking. Introspection has already happened when one thinks there is the need for conscious thinking in a given circumstance. As you say, reflection is the "examination of experience." So this appears to be a good (although certainly not exhaustive) definition of introspection.

Point 2: Introspection implies verification to a certain extent. Conversely, verificatory endeavors require the verifier to be introspective, even if this involves the invocation of a heuristic. This I think also reasonably explains the epistemological significance of introspection.

In short, I think metaphysical inquiries involve claims about what is and what isn't and the nature of these "things." I've never thought of metaphysics and ontology as different things. They seem one and the same to me.

Introspection is an essential aspect of critical inquiry, if not critical inquiry itself. Whether one is a positivist or a Continental-kinda thinker, introspection is inevitable. The trouble, I think, begins when we focus on the subject of introspection. To staunch logical positivists, metaphysical inquiries are pointless, whereas to,say, the phenomenologists, the efforts to create "a truly logical language based on pure reason" (as the positivists sometimes intend to) would be futile.

Additionally, a positivist might not really concede that deductive and inductive reasoning involve introspection. To them, it's pejorative. Yet, much has been said about the epistemological significance of introspection. We need only look at the works of Gadamer and Merlau-Ponty. On the other hand, people such as Popper and Feyerabend have shed light on the sociological factors responsible for the valorization of certain kinds of cognitive processes and verificatory methods. This has given rise to disciplines such as Philosophy of Science and Sociology of Science. In effect, these disciplines aim to look at the ways in which a certain field or ways of making knowledge claims are legitimized. That is, they look for their conditions of possibility (Please see: Sociology: The Essentials). Foucault's work is also especially salient in this context, especially The Order of Things, which focuses on the grounds on which knowledge became possible across what he calls epistemes.

Introspection is inevitable.

That capitalism ensures equality of opportunity is not true. It is a sleight of hand, often used to legitimize and deepen the roots of capitalism. John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" thought experiment is very useful to strengthen this claim. It essentially says, public policy or the choice of economic system should be made based on active empathy. What policy would you need if you belonged to the marginalized? What channels of opportunity would you prefer?

It seems like such a simple thing, but in praxis, it shows how so many pro-rich policies are made solely for the benefit of a tiny elite. In effect, therefore, capitalism is not even capable of satisfying majoritarian impulses, let alone ensure equality of opportunity to all. Moreover, capitalism and the free market have also not been able to ensure free/affordable healthcare or housing. Capitalism conquers by supply. An excess of supply eventually creates demand, which is really only resignation.

I think it is not possible to say what it is that capitalism really promised initially. The American Dream, perhaps? But that is too shallow an ideal. Capitalism, as has been argued, does not enable equality, but forces homogeneity instead (Source: The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time). Proactive governance is one tenable way to address this problem, which means holding governments accountable for failing to ensure basic quality of life and entitlements.

Hi, all! I am new here, and this is my first post. This is a very interesting thread. Nonetheless, I'm quite surprised that Foucault hasn't been mentioned here yet, especially his analysis of language in The Order of Things.

To be very short, one can say that words are arbitrary when they are not onomatopoeic. So, there is really no "essential" connection between the word and the signified. I invoke Foucault because he presents a critical picture of the history of the analysis of language across what he calls "epistemes." This is also related to the question of essence, as considered in phenomenology.

So, what does one mean by the "essence" of a word? That is a difficult question!