Carrol wrote: >>It seems to me that various forms of empiricism constitute a far more >>serious repudiation of marxism than do the various fads called >>"post structuralism," "post modernism," "deconstruction," etc. Louis writes: >I confess. I am not only an empiricist but a pragmatist. When I worked in >Nicaragua, I always found myself stooping to the level of the people in the >Ministry of Banking who were looking for software that worked properly. Being empirically-oriented is not the same thing as being an empiricist. An empiricist basically says that theories are unnecessary, relying only on "common sense." I guess Carrol is thinking of the Empirio-criticism debate of classical Marxism, in which some (like Eduard Bernstein) rejected Marxian theory as a whole because of empirical evidence rather than seeing that a lot of that theory is abstract and therefore does not apply directly to the "real world" without bringing in extra information (like the existence of the division of the world between the conquering and the conquered nations, as in the theories of imperialism of Lenin, Luxemburg, and Bukharin). Rod writes: >The way we learn is more complicated that that. We are constantly moving >back forth from "facts" to "theory", or if you prefer from the concrete to >the abstract. Any one you attempts to "theorise" without information, is >engaged in a dream world (is an idealist). We need both. It is a mistake to >call all appeals to the "facts" empiricist. This is right on target. Both "facts" and "theory" are necessary. In fact, they nourish each other. I agree that even though theories are needed, those which lack any empirical or practical content are like building castles in the air. Similarly, though empirical content is needed, thinking which rejects theory and abstraction altogether isn't really thinking. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
