Tom wrote: “hmmm . . . the origins of private property, family and the state by
Engels? Clearly human ideology, including "common sense", has material roots
in the evolution of humankind as does the much maligned "pragmatism", a new
word for an old way of thinking I think William James characterized it, but
worthy nonetheless, like "trial and error" or the "scientific method" more
generally, unless we work backwards, like "Ptolemaic" medieval astronomers and
creation scientists from conclusions and precepts to cherry pick facts to
support our particular shibboleths. It's good that, to the extent I'm
following you at this point, you're not doing that, as I've seen plenty of
sectarian ideologues do that over the years.”
Talk about straw man. I’m not sure if you’ve read the posts on this thread
which started last month, but the only one who’s been visceral about demonizing
metaphysics, and sectarian at that by dismissing anything she doesn’t agree
with as “obscure” whether it came from Marx or whoever, is Rosa. To repeat
myself, what I said was the attempting a critique of anything JUST for being
metaphysical because of one’s own blindness to see that one’s argument is based
on metaphysical assumptions is self-defeating, unless you think this
(http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm#Impossibility-Of-Any-Future-Metaphysics)
does the job.
As for pragmatism being bourgeois, it is so if the history of common sense
assumptions and their meaning is veiled under the pretext that science is an
infallible (abstract) ‘thing’ above man, as Rosa wants to keep it; and she
won’t hesitate in cherry-picking quotes; when I quote Marx he’s being too
obscure, when she quotes him he’s vomiting on Hegel’s grave!
There’s quite a number of things to be learnt from Kant but his project to
prove that metaphysics is impossible has the aim of establishing pure
ahistorical form as the sole determinant of reality, and so goes in the
direction of bourgeois speculation taken to its highest point.
Tom wrote: “Also, to say that scientific theory has material roots, does not
mean that it must have a "class character" in some mechanical way,…”
And I’ve never said that comrade. To repeat myself, that science develops in
capitalism doesn't make it less objective or more evil, it is part of the
development of capital, the barrier of which is itself, so that "capitalistic"
science is cut back from its full expression.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
