<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Economics and Literature</title>
	<atom:link href="http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/10/19/economics-and-literature/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/10/19/economics-and-literature/</link>
	<description>Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ln</title>
		<link>http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/10/19/economics-and-literature/#comment-4806</link>
		<dc:creator>ln</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:47:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/economics-and-literature/#comment-4806</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the pointer to Cantor’s paper, which I read and enjoyed. I do not want to push the discussion on literature too far, but I think my basic point is an old one of mine, namely that logic is a discipline in both mathematics and philosophy. If we as management scholars wish to search for logic we can in principle look in both places. Where economics is of course an obvious place to look, I think we have to complement it every once in a while, if it is to make sense to differentiate between management and economics.

I never thought of O&#38;M as anti-literary, but perhaps a bit sceptical to post-modernism and the FMS-movement.  I agree in such scepticism and as Cantor’s paper shows, so do at least some literary authors and scholars of literature.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the pointer to Cantor’s paper, which I read and enjoyed. I do not want to push the discussion on literature too far, but I think my basic point is an old one of mine, namely that logic is a discipline in both mathematics and philosophy. If we as management scholars wish to search for logic we can in principle look in both places. Where economics is of course an obvious place to look, I think we have to complement it every once in a while, if it is to make sense to differentiate between management and economics.</p>
<p>I never thought of O&amp;M as anti-literary, but perhaps a bit sceptical to post-modernism and the FMS-movement.  I agree in such scepticism and as Cantor’s paper shows, so do at least some literary authors and scholars of literature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jung-Chin Shen</title>
		<link>http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/10/19/economics-and-literature/#comment-4782</link>
		<dc:creator>Jung-Chin Shen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/economics-and-literature/#comment-4782</guid>
		<description>And Deirdre (Donald) McCloskey's The Rhetoric of Economics is, of course, an interesting read as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And Deirdre (Donald) McCloskey&#8217;s The Rhetoric of Economics is, of course, an interesting read as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
