You missed the point, Carroll.
It's another April Fools.

The Great Books writ small.


Quoting Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>:

> Books do not  change the world. They crystallize; they make visible;
> they form a memento of; they sum up; they give voice to; they celebrate;
> they provide a mutual recognition system for those millions of mostly
> nameless ones whose actions and words _do_ change, have changed, and
> will change again the world.
> _The Wealth of Nations_ is a very beautiful book. One semester when I
> was too deep in depression to read ordinarily I could read while
> peddling an exercycle for 60 minutes a day six days a week, and it was
> while peddling that exercycle that I read _The Wealth of Nations_. It
> was the only text I did read over a period of about three months. But it
> is a perfect example of the ways in which books function as I have
> indicated above. It was backward-looking; it summarized the complex of
> social relations which had formed behind the back of men and women in
> the 16th and 17th centuries. But capitalism would have gotten along just
> the same had Smith never  been born. (Incidentally, not one economist in
> 3000 reads Smith today -- which is their loss, but it wouldn't change
> anything if they did begin to read him again. No one is more ignorant of
> history, including the history of their own field, then neoclassical
> economists.)
> Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point
> is to change it. Or as someone else in the same tradition remarked a
> century later -- if you want to know what a pear tastes like, you have
> to participate in changing the world by biting into the pear.
> Carrol