Well said.
In my courses, "Man" has become "People". Which change changes nothing but a possible acceptability.
Forgive me, but you know how I like to trail my coat in front of our friends.
Of course, inviting them to step on it.
Harry
______________________________________________-
Michael wrote:
Harry,
My point really wasn't about "gender sensitivity" but rather that, as the Feminist scholars have forced us to recognize (and as various other folks--notably Ray, have already pointed out)--words have meanings in contexts and that if we evoke a word we also evoke the context both in ourselves as the scribe, and in the reader -- and they need not (in fact are unlikely) to be the same.
Formal Philosophy ( of the Linguistic Analysis school) made mince meat of the Germans (Hegel, Schopenhouer, etc.etc.) by at the base, pointing out that the attempt to evoke syllogistic or mathematical logic using highly contextualized language, just wasn't on.
Hence, I would guess, the flight of Economics into ever more rarified (and disembodied) invocations of pure Math and the departure of Economics teaching from Economics reality as presented by Ed and Arthur.
Its not quite "Words mean what I say that they mean" but rather that "Words means what we have accepted that they mean" where "we" is understood in "our" multitudes, rather than in "their" pseudo scientific singularity.
Mike Gurstein
- -----Original Message-----
- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harry Pollard
- Sent: February 1, 2002 3:23 PM
- To: Michael Gurstein; Keith Hudson
- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subject: RE: Economics as a science (was Re: Double-stranded Economics)
- Mike,
- I said originally:
- "Man's desires are unlimited."
- "Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion."
- (Gender sensitive people can change "Man" to "People".)
- So, change it to people.
- No problem.
- Incidentally, Man and Mankind used to mean people before the feminists decided to try witchcraft (or warlockcraft).
- Harry
- __________________________________________________-
- Michael wrote:
- Hmmm...
- Let's take a wee look at the first two of those first premises as posited by
- Keith...
- 1. Man's desires are unlimited;
- 2. Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion;
- Does that also and necessarily include, "scientifically" of course,:
- 1. Woman's desires are unlimited;
- 2. Women seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion;
- (or do we suddenly find ourselves in some nasty messy confusions of meaning,
- structured misunderstanding, nuance, "he said/she said... etc.etc. which I
- believe is partially the point being made by the Post-Autistic Economists.
- MG
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
