The problem here is simply that I'm not sure of the ground of our
discussion. If this is tautological to you, then we share at very least the
point of view that science is at root a product of men's response to their
needs and not simply a reflection of the universe in consciousness.
Oudeyis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:15
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Well, my reaction here re-invokes my sense of the tautology of all such
arguments. That is, there can be no meaningful claims about the universe
apart from our interaction with the universe since we can't make any
claims about anything without interacting with the phenomena about which
we are making claims. Your claim that all our knowledge claims about the
universe from the Big Bang on, are expressions of human need, is
tautologically true, and hence not very interesting or revealing.
At 11:51 AM 5/28/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
>
> but what about history of nature? I mean before there wasn't anything
that
> can be qualified as man's interaction withthe world. does in your view
> dialectics start with the appearance of a species that does not simply
adjust
> itself to nature like other animals but starts changibng it more or
> less
> conscioulsy by labour?
>
> NOTE, THAT THE ISSUE OF THE RELEVANCE OF LOGIC (DIALECTICS) TO HUMAN
HISTORY
> IS NOT A MATTER OF THE NATURE OF THE WORLD BUT OF MAN'S INTERACTION
> WITH
THE
> WORLD
Whether or not nature has a history is a question for nature, of little
relevance for the practical realization of human needs.
Man, in order to better determine his needs and the means necessary to
realize them investigates through reason and practice (experimentation and
informed search) the development of the relevant (essential) incohoate
features of the natural world, including those of his own activities. The
result is the objective determinations of past events in the natural world
and of their relevance to the form and substance of our current needs and
to
the realization of these in practical activity. The laws and principles as
well as the developmental schemas produced by our research into what is
called Natural History are a product of and the means for realization of
strictly human objectives. Is this a history of nature? Well, we are
ourselves an integral part and force of the natural world and the massive
array of objects we depend on for perpetuation of our life activity have
their ultimate origin in nature, but that's a far cry from arguing that
human beings and their essential equipage is identical with the totality
of
nature or that our activity in nature involves nature as a whole.
Regards,
Oudeyis
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
