Look who's talking, chum. Your prose ain't no winderpane neither. Anyway, I am not talking to a working class audience, but to PENsters, who have a higher ratio of advanced degrees to the person than is usual among a typical working class audience. Or are you one of those people who thinks that anything pitched above the level of a People's Weekly World article is counterrevolutionary or liberal condescension?
--- Kenneth Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Hegel, btw, doesn't think that whatever is, is > >rational in the sense that everything is always > hunky > >dory and this is always the best of all possible > >worlds. He's not Leibniz, and he's intensely aware > of > >the Voltairean criticisms of that sort of > Panglossian > >foolishness. The least charitable reading of the > real > >= rational idea is that after a long period of > history > >in which the real wasn't rational, we have reached > the > >point where it finally is and history can stop now. > >Marx and the Young (left) Hegelians took Hegel, or > the > >old (right) Hegelians to be saying something like > >that. A more charitable reading is that the real is > >_intelligible_, that we with the equipment of the > >Logik we can make sense out of whatever is real, > >without necessarily thinking it is perfect. > > THIS kind of writing is why no one of the working > class cares about > Marx. > > Ken. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
