Scott,
I'm tired of the discussion too, so I'll just say that the debate about Mach
and whether he was a "doctrinaire nut" is the sort of inclusive dispute
about whether scholars can differ. Einstein, however, with his rejection of
quantum indeterminism on philosophical grounds, was in no position to
complain about someone else's credentials as a philosopher, and I will add
that although Mach, a fine physicist, couldn't lay a glove on Einstein in
that department (who could?), he was a superb philosopher. _The Science of
Mechanics_ is properly regarded as a great book in the philosophy of
physics. I won't dispute that Mach was a proto-positivist.
Scott said:
I stand by my
>characterization of this point of view as "nutty".
>
>Is Mach's point of view also appropriately called positivism?
A note on "Marxists": "traditional" or "orthodox" Marxist or (probbaly more
accurately) "Marxist Leninist" is fine,
Scott said:
I backed off
>to "traditional Marxists" above. Or is that still unacceptable?
I find a great deal of value in Marx, and advocate that everyone read him
thoroughly and often. Keynes too, though he is a lesser light. I ama great
fan of Lukacs, and am probably one of the few people in the world who can
say I have been influenced as much by Lukacs as by Quine. Adorno I've never
been able to wrap my head around. I'm not too big on the Frankfuters, but
this may bea matter of temperment. As for Lenin, I agree with Doug Henwood,
whose talk at the Essen Lenin conference was posted here, that he's mainly a
figure of historical interest,w hich doesn't mean he shouldn't be read and
unhderstood. I don't, in fact, call myself a Marxist, although other people
do call me one, go figure.
jks
>
>Anybody can call themselves whatever they like. What puzzles me though is
>why
>anybody WANTS to call themselves a Marxist when they seem to find so little
>of value IN Marxism, and in the Marxist tradition of not only Marx, but of
>Engels, Lenin and Mao.
>. . . . .
>
>But, really, if so little of that Marxist tradition is deemed by many
>"up-to-date Marxists" today to have any value... If Lukacs, Adorno and
>Keynes
>should be read, but not Marx and Lenin... Well, I just wonder how much of a
>thing can you throw out before the nature of that thing changes its
>essential
>nature into something totally different.
>
>--Scott Harrison
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
