>>I press serious objections and you respond by calling me a believer
>>and flag waver instead of facing up to the fact that you have not
>>provided compelling reasons for your very harsh negative judgement of
>>value theory.
>>I don't read your comments as a personal attack but as evidence of
>>f
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 8:57 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22604] Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Premises,
Circularities etc was Re: His tor ical Materialism
>
> >
> >Justin
>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>I met G and spoke to him when he was at the Institute and I was a
>>Tigertown
>>undergrad . . . .
>>
>
>
>i hope you challenged him on his indefensible platonist epistemology! ;-)
>
> --ravi
I sat down at the Student Center with a cheesesteak (Lord, those th
>I press serious objections and you respond by calling me a believer
>and flag waver instead of facing up to the fact that you have not
>provided compelling reasons for your very harsh negative judgement of
>value theory.
>I don't read your comments as a personal attack but as evidence of
>frustr
>As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
>ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
>so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
Well there's a fundamental philosophical issue at stake isn't there?
For my part, I'm mo
>>A contemptuous comment.
>>
>
>R, this is not the first time you have taken my rejection of your
>pet theory as a personal attack. In the world of scholarship, it is
>normal for people to disagree sharply about fundamentals, and even
>to think the ideas and reserach programs of others as funda
>A contemptuous comment.
>
R, this is not the first time you have taken my rejection of your pet theory
as a personal attack. In the world of scholarship, it is normal for people
to disagree sharply about fundamentals, and even to think the ideas and
reserach programs of others as fundamentall
Hey, I think this debate is great. I can delete the whole day's
posts without reading them and think of the time I save ;-).
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
> Doug wrote:
>
> > As is always the case with these debates,
> > I can't resist the urge to ask - so what?
> > Why is
> I will always cherish Antonio Callari's observation at an IWGVT
> session at the EEA a few years ago - that value theorists use value
> theory as a substitute for politics. Who needs to organize, if the
> OCC will do the work for you?
people can think up lots of reasons to avoid politics. We
Sabri Oncu wrote:
>So I would have
>liked it more if the participants relate this theoretical debate
>to its implications for changing the world.
I will always cherish Antonio Callari's observation at an IWGVT
session at the EEA a few years ago - that value theorists use value
theory as a subs
Ian says:> A great post.
thanks.
> Below is our real problem. [our only one?] How would we fare with such a
disputant?
Ian quotes:> "In recent years, protectionism has also manifested itself in a
somewhat different guise by challenging the moral roots of capitalism and
globalization. At the r
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22565] RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
> > As is always the case with these debates, I can&
> As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
> ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
> so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
I can't speak for those folks, since my mind-reading ability has evaporated,
but the reaso
>>As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
>>ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
>>so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
>
>This started with a brief remark. Then someone asked me to explain
>why I reject the LTV.
>
>As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
>ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
>so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
This started with a brief remark. Then someone asked me to explain why I
reject the LTV. Th
Doug wrote:
> As is always the case with these debates,
> I can't resist the urge to ask - so what?
> Why is the value controversy so important?
> Why is it so important for Justin to reject
> it and Rakesh to defend it?
This is highly correlated with the question I was asking to
myself Doug: Wh
ot;Doug Henwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:00 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22552] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what? Why is the value c
- Original Message -
From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:48 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22551] Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
So Ian seems to have taken Blaug's word for it.
==
No I didn't
Ian
>
As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
I could understand if you were using the theory to predict the
ultimate implosion of capitalism
Yes, I guess I was supporting Jim in saying that it is not true that kind of
economic theories under discussion are any more circular than geometry.
Physics is less circular than the F=ma account Jim gave but I think good
political economy can resemble the more holistic description of physics of
m
20 matches
Mail list logo
