Elegant (of refined taste or manner),
but inexact
James F posits human knowing
that is outside of human history.
There is nonesuch.
Every act of human knowing
is part of human history.
Since,
James F. accepts that human history
is dialectical, all human knowing
is dialectical, including human
knowing of natural history or
nature.
Humans only know things-in-themselves
as things-for-us. Things-for-us only
come from human practice (Second
Thesis on Feuerbach) which
is part of human history. Human
history is dialectical, thus human
practice is dialectical. All things-for-us
are dialectical.
Jim F. commits the same error
as Russ, who posits human
interest in and knowledge of
things with which
humans NEVER have any
interaction. But we know
nothing of that which we
have no interaction,
no practice (2nd Thesis
on F.).
Actually, Jim has it sort of
backward below. It is not
that natural history is dialectical
because human history is
emergent from natural history.
It is that all of human
knowledge is part of human
history, and human history
is dialectical, thus human
knowledge of nature is
dialectical.
For vulgar marxism,
Charles Brown
>>> James Farmelant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/13 9:57 AM >>>
I think that Russ just about sums up the fallacy that underlies
the arguments of the believers in the dialectics of nature.
Hugh's arguments are substantively the same as those
of Charles or Chris though phrased a bit more elegantly.
In any case both Charles and Chris have been committing
the same type of fallacy when they argue that since history
is dialectical and since human history is emergent out
of natural history therefore natural history must be
dialectical.
Jim Farmelant
On Wed, 13 Jan 99 13:19:50 +0000 Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Deary me Hugh,
>
>What is the substance of your argument but that:
>
>Consciousness is dialectical.
>Consciousness is ultimately natural.
>Diddly-dee:
>The natural is dialectical.
>
>?
>
>Pardon me Hugh, isn't this to render the social, i.e the realm of the
>political, meaningless?
>
>
>Russ
>
>PS what did you toast Spinoza with - it wasn't the yellow snow from
>out
>the back of the shaman's tent by any chance?
>
>pip hic desparandum
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>
Elegant (of refined taste or manner),
but inexact
James F posits human knowing
that is outside of human history.
There is nonesuch.
Every act of human knowing
is part of human history.
Since,
James F. accepts that human history
is dialectical, all human knowing
is dialectical, including human
knowing of natural history or
nature.
Humans only know things-in-themselves
as things-for-us. Things-for-us only
come from human practice (Second
Thesis on Feuerbach) which
is part of human history. Human
history is dialectical, thus human
practice is dialectical. All things-for-us
are dialectical.
Jim F. commits the same error
as Russ, who posits human
interest in and knowledge of
things with which
humans NEVER have any
interaction. But we know
nothing of that which we
have no interaction,
no practice (2nd Thesis
on F.).
Actually, Jim has it sort of
backward below. It is not
that natural history is dialectical
because human history is
emergent from natural history.
It is that all of human
knowledge is part of human
history, and human history
is dialectical, thus human
knowledge of nature is
dialectical.
For vulgar marxism,
Charles Brown
>>> James Farmelant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/13 9:57 AM >>>
I think that Russ just about sums up the fallacy that underlies
the arguments of the believers in the dialectics of nature.
Hugh's arguments are substantively the same as those
of Charles or Chris though phrased a bit more elegantly.
In any case both Charles and Chris have been committing
the same type of fallacy when they argue that since history
is dialectical and since human history is emergent out
of natural history therefore natural history must be
dialectical.
Jim Farmelant
On Wed, 13 Jan 99 13:19:50 +0000 Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Deary me Hugh,
>
>What is the substance of your argument but that:
>
>Consciousness is dialectical.
>Consciousness is ultimately natural.
>Diddly-dee:
>The natural is dialectical.
>
>?
>
>Pardon me Hugh, isn't this to render the social, i.e the realm of the
>political, meaningless?
>
>
>Russ
>
>PS what did you toast Spinoza with - it wasn't the yellow snow from
>out
>the back of the shaman's tent by any chance?
>
>pip hic desparandum
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
