Indeed, but a little care is needed: the key Islamic philosophers had a higher profile in educated thought from the Renaissance to the beginning of the Enlightenment, so the simple fact of Smith citing Al-Ghazali is less significant in itself than it might at first appear. Smith was a friend of Hume, who was particularly influenced by Al-Ghazali.

People like heroic narratives in intellectual history, but very little of what's in Adam Smith is new and unique to Smith. I picked my username semi-jokingly to draw attention to Francois Quesnay, who was a significant predecessor to Smith. But Quesnay isn't even unique -- you can point to any number of competitors. This is well-understood by actual historians of economic thought.

The significance of Smith is that he's where everybody learned these ideas from, not because the ideas are necessarily new with him. "Wealth of Nations" as much of an act of synthesis as it is an act of creation.

Thank you!

I've been wondering how to continue learning about the ideas Graeber's writings introduced to me.

Graeber's work puts me in the same frame of mind as Robert Wright (Nonzero, Moral Animal) did. Very optimistic.

Hudson's anecdote about Deaton refusing to appear on stage with them is hysterical.