"The evidence points to the conclusion that people in commercial societies are better, which is one of the best reasons to prefer commercial societies

Recently, Becker and Posner considered if the Free Market corrodes moral character. I inflated myself immediately after they posted, only to be deflated in minutes. Today, Will Wilkinson weighed in, and the same thing happened. Why? I love philosophy. Well, I'm going to tell you why.

Many years ago, I was a student of the philosopher Paul Grice. At the time, he appeared and dressed a little oddly in my opinion. Nowadays, I'm looking and dressing more and more like him. Someday, the resemblance will be uncanny.

Anyway, I used to spend a good part of my time sitting on the steps of the philosophy building. I was called the gargoyle of the philosophy building. The story was that one of my teachers had been known as the gargoyle of Emerson Hall when he was in college and graduate school, because he spent a good part of his time sitting on its steps, and he had made a remark that I reminded him of his younger self, and so I was so named. The truth was probably more like we're both short gnarly guys who look a bit like gargoyles.

So, one day, when I should have been reading Davidson, Quine, or Strawson for class, I was sitting on these steps reading Bradley. Grice walked up to me and almost rolled over, saying something like, " Good Lord, Bradley. Well, every philosopher comes back in vogue someday".

The thing was, I wasn't reading Bradley because of philosophy. As I recall, Eliot had written a book on Bradley which I'd managed to come across, so I'd decided to read Bradley afterwards.

After all these years, I believe that Grice was wrong. My favorite philosopher is J.L. Austin. Even then, Austin had fallen out of favor. One reason I never liked Strawson was because he'd gone head to head against Austin, and most philosophers had given the prize to Strawson. I date the decline of Anglo-American Philosophy to that calamity.

My other favorite philosopher is Wittgenstein, especially in his book called "On Certainty". Years after being dismissed from school, I managed to get to know an incredibly decent and knowledgeable man by the name of Bernard Williams. Even though he found me hard to take, he talked to me a few times.

Once, I told him that I was writing a philosophy book in the style of Austin and Wittgenstein, and what did he think would come of it if I did. He told me go ahead, but only he and a few others would get it, and hardly anyone would read it.

For many years, I assumed that it was because Austin and Wittgenstein are complicated, but now I have a different assumption. I believe that most people find their style of philosophizing annoying. They're both rather like Socrates with the Elenchus. Their mode of analysis tends to make people feel out of sorts and unmoored.

Take "On Certainty". Many people finishing it probably ask themselves if Moore was speaking a foreign language, or maybe speaking in code. "This is my right hand" means arm the bomb, "This is my left hand" means detonate it.

So, when I analyze posts philosophically, my guess is that they will be very annoying. For one thing, I would have spent some energy on the word "corrode", in order to see if their question even made sense, and was capable of being intelligently answered. You get the point.

However, here's some great news. You can read "On Certainty" online here.

Please read the Becker, Posner, and Wilkinson. But ask yourself, what does Wilkinson mean when he uses the word "better"?