----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 6:51 PM Subject: Re: Voodoo Economics
> > 1) Why do you assume that if he saw contrary evidence, > he would have corrected himself? There was plenty of > contrary evidence available in 1883, and it didn't > seem to stop him. No arguement from me here. > 2) Why _not_ blame him for what has been done in his > name since he died? It seems like much of what > happened in his name is a logical outcome of what he > said, after all. I fully agree with that. > > At what point do we get to say that he was full of it > and move on, really? I'm not sure about that. In many many ways his ideas are both wrong and dangerous. His focusing on classes and the inevitability of class struggle, his inability to see the possibility of moderation and compromise all are firm foundations for the evil done in his name. Yet, his works are not without valid points. I think his work on the origin of alienation is good. The historical dialectic is a worthwhile tool. My guess is that he will, properly, be taught as a major philosopher/political philosopher/sociologist for years to come. Properly taught, he can also be a roll model for the disastrous effects of hubris when intellectuals ply their trade. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
