The physics formula F = M.a is "circular," because each term is defined by the other two. The concept of a "point" in geometry is also circular. These examples (and many others) suggest that there is nothing wrong with circular definitions, as long as one is clear about the nature of that circularity.
of course, "corruption" is normative in the sense that it violates (official) bourgeois norms. But I didn't know that _pen-l's_ discussion was normative, i.e., that someone was proposing that corruption was _the_ problem to be opposed or something like that. ------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Eubulides [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] More on anti-corruption > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >And yet the US scores rather well compared to say, Nigeria on the > corruption > index...< > > I agree that there's no way one could create a "corruption index." It > can't be quantified. > > > Yet the moment we let the > above definition serve as the baseline norm ...< > > I didn't know that the discussion was normative in focus. As I noted, > "corruption" is defined > relative to "bourgeois right," which is itself corrupt. > > Jim > ================ > > All your response does is to push the baseline norm issue > 'back' one step. > Corruption as a sociological term is irreducibly normative. > > All hail the hermeneutic circle :-> > > Ian >
