Q: Why did you study Thucydides, Marx, Trotsky, Engels, The Federalist Papers, Durkheim, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Freud, the writings of formative child-psychologist D.W. Winnicott, two trimesters of Shakespeare with the editor of the Bantam series, Edmund Spencer’s The Faerie Queen, Buñuel/Dali’s Un Chien Andalou, Michael Snow’s 40-min. “zoom” film Wavelength, Hitchcock’s The Lady Vanishes, Althusser‘s “On Ideology” essay, Walter Benjamin‘s writings on Photography, Godard’s Vivre Sa Vie (w/o subtitles), Ionesco’s The Rhinoceros, Beloved, War and Peace, the Dada art movement, Moby-Dick, Ambrose Bierce’s short fiction, Flannery O’Connor’s short fiction, Langston Hughes’s short fiction, a law-school class in “The First Amendment” with Dennis Hutchinson, Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography, The Yellow Wallpaper, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, Michel Foucault’s formulation of the Panopticon, etc., etc., at the Univ. of Chicago, when you could have gone to Cornell, where Milton Friedman taught, and become a “Free Market” acolyte, by osmosis?
A: That doesn’t make any sense. Firstly, Milton Friedman didn’t teach at Cornell (and grad school professors have little, if any, interaction with college students). Secondly, “osmosis”? Thirdly, even mentioning Friedman’s name without referencing Adam Smith’s preposterous “Invisible Hand” conceit [which posits that, completely despite the conscious intentions of the individuals laboring in “free markets” — or not — an “Invisible Hand” will, inevitably, guide & shape their behavior(s) so that they benefit the “greater good” of society-as-a-whole, anyway] is ridiculous; there’d be no such school(s) of “laissez-faire” theorizing without Smith’s utterly-inane and pseudo-religious “posit” of the market-as-benevolent-deity, to begin with! (In fact, during the four (4) years I spent at the “U of C,” Smith’s writings were the only 100% STUPID thing that I came across!)