ABSTRACT
Though the justification for a heterodox approach from a normative point of view is valuable, we try to build a more robust thesis that theorizing the economy cannot but be heterodox. To think otherwise is delusional. Our defence centres on interrogating two interrelated philosophical questions – ‘What is theory?’ and ‘What distinguishes one theory from another?’ The criteria essential to answering these questions are epistemology (which can take the two contrasting forms of determinism and non-determinism) and point of entry which becomes the focus of organizing theories. These two aspects serve as the foundation of constructing different theories and comparing them. After elaboration of these themes from a philosophical perspective, we demonstrate how and why Neoclassical, Marxian and Keynesian economics emerge as distinct theoretical systems by virtue of their dissimilar focus of analysis and the diverse ways in which their logical structures are constructed. Theoretical limitations are resultantly endogenous products of the very construction of their respective knowledge. Consequently, truth is shown to be relative rather than absolute.
