Philosophy and Begging

"In the progress of sociey, philosophy or speculation becomes, like every other employment, the principal or sole trade and occupation of a particular class of citizens. Like every other employment too, it is subdivided into a great number of different branches, each of which affords occupations to a peculiar tribe or class of philosophers" (11).

---

"We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend on it entirely" (15).

"Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevelence only" (15).

"Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniencies, and amusments of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people" (33).

My business and economics major has a magnet on our refrigerator that drives me crazy. It says, "You're not paid to think! Shut up and do your job." While my roommate just likes to provoke people, Smith might agree with the magnet. I had some questions about how workers could invent things with a limited view, and so I was relieved when he allowed some improvements from philosophy. However, he then proceeded to make philosophy susceptible to divisions of specialization. Isn't philosophy an engagement with the meaning of life, and hence with all of the factors of life? How can a philosopher specialize, unless by specialize is meant 'think about everything all the time?' If he does specialize, he must necessarily be leaving some factor out of the meaning of life; and so could a 'specialized philosopher' help anyone? But then again, the workers don't take into account all factors of life, and they still come up with improvements, so likewise a philosopher might come up with improvements, if not perfect ones.

---

Taking my second, third, and fourth quotes together, there seems to be very little difference separating the beggar and the working man. Why can we not address ourselves to someone else's humanity instead of his or her self-love? What would need to be done for such an address to take precedence over one to self-love? And, most importantly, it seems very hard to exist without addressing both poeple's humanity and self-love. Is it not true that in making a deal, I am more likely to buy from someone whom I judge more benevolent or good, i.e. more "human." Or is Smith all the way on the side of self-love?