Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
Ralph you say that you are not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. I am intrigued by this because although I look to a range of philosophical resources - Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Jameson, etc - they do tend for me to be politically progressive figures. I wonder if you can give any examples of how you find non-politically progressive individuals to be fruitful? Phil Walden -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 03 April 2008 05:08 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. I wonder if this is unequivocally true about the Frankfurters. For sure, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse had an animus against positivism, but it is not necessarily the case that they viewed the neopositivists themselves as reactionaries. The closest approach to specific animosity I can think of is some correspondence in the '30s I read about where Horkheimer refused to participate in dialogue with Neurath, but I don't trust my memory. I would like to point out for the general purpose of such discussions, I am not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. At 08:09 PM 4/2/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 rasherrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a circle that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was in my late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary group. The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
Bad grammar aside, I thought my point was non-mysterious. If, after I've given a detailed argument as to why some philosophy is false and harmful, someone retorts that philosopher X actually had politically progressive views, why should I then be more favorably disposed towards said bullshit? Your question is the reverse: what individuals (thinkers, presumably) do I find fruitful though not politically progressive? I would imagine there must be thousands, but why is this even a question? The more important question in either of these scenarios is: is there an intrinsic connection between a body of thought and a politics, and what is its nature? The case of Heidegger is a particularly apt example, though there are countless others. At 01:36 AM 4/3/2008, Phil Walden wrote: Ralph you say that you are not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. I am intrigued by this because although I look to a range of philosophical resources - Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Jameson, etc - they do tend for me to be politically progressive figures. I wonder if you can give any examples of how you find non-politically progressive individuals to be fruitful? Phil Walden -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 03 April 2008 05:08 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. I wonder if this is unequivocally true about the Frankfurters. For sure, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse had an animus against positivism, but it is not necessarily the case that they viewed the neopositivists themselves as reactionaries. The closest approach to specific animosity I can think of is some correspondence in the '30s I read about where Horkheimer refused to participate in dialogue with Neurath, but I don't trust my memory. I would like to point out for the general purpose of such discussions, I am not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. At 08:09 PM 4/2/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 rasherrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a circle that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was in my late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary group. The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
Hi Jim Interesting! You seem very familiar with the Vienna Circle. What was it that attracted your interest in it? Paddy Hackett - Original Message - From: Jim Farmelant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 rasherrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a circle that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was in my late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary group. The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. Why did Wittgenstein not view himself as a logical positivist? The Circle admired Wittgenstein, but he was not inclined to reciprocate. He thought that they misunderstood what he was attempting to do. He was willing to meet with individual members of the Circle, with people like Schlick, Carnap, Feigl etc. but he refused to meet with the Circle as a whole. What, if any, the principal difference(s) between their philosophies in these early days. I can see why there is a difference between Popper and Logical Positivism --the question of verfiability over falsifiablity. There were differences with in the Circle over such issues as physicalist realism versus phenonomenalism, coherence theories of truth versus correspondence theories of truth. Later on there were somewhat different understandings of what was entailed by the unity of science. Did that mean that a straight forward reductionist program was possible with everything being ultimately reduced to the laws of chemistry and physics, or did it simply mean that all meaningul propositions about the world, whether those propositions be from the natural sciences, or the behavioral and social sciences, were expressible in terms of physicalist language? Neurath tended to champion holistic conceptions of truth and knowledge and he shied away from extreme reductionism. His positions were thus akin to those that many Marxists have held over the years. Jim F. Paddy Hackett - Original Message - From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. Interesting. I wonder if I should put this or similar items into my bibliography. This is a Marxist advocating the Popperian approach as a way of circumventing doctrinal rigidification. Can you think of other Marxists who have taken this road? ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
I am interested in them because of my general interest in the philosophy of science and the broader implications: culturally, socially and politically of differing philosophies of science. Concerning the Vienna Circle, I am in agreement with George Reisch that because of the peculiarities of the reception of logical empiricism into the anglophone world, especially in the US, people have generally failed to understand or appreciate the broader concerns of the Vienna Circle, so that it was generally understood in the US as having been mainly about modern logic and the philosophy of science, whereas they in fact had much broader interests. For example, they had a close working relationship with the Bauhaus. That was partially because the Vienna Circle member, Philipp Frank, had a brother, Josef Frank, who was an architect and a teacher at the Bauhaus, but it was also the case that various members of the Circle, including Neurath and Carnap would regularly give lectures at the Bauhaus. The Circle saw the kind of work being pursued by the Bauhaus as being consistent with their own work as philosophers and scientists. Both the Bauhaus and the Circle were part of the broader social democratic culture that prevailed in Germany and Austria prior to the rise of fascism. Of the members of the Vienna Circle, Otto Neurath was probably the one who was the most concerned with pursuing these broader implications of logical empiricism. This no doubt was due to his experiences of having been an economic planner for the Austrian government during WW I, his participation in the radical left governments of Bavaria during the 1919 revolution, and his work for the Austrian SPD and the trade union movement during the 1920s and 1930s. Jim F. -- rasherrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jim Interesting! You seem very familiar with the Vienna Circle. What was it that attracted your interest in it? Paddy Hackett - Original Message - From: Jim Farmelant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 rasherrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a circle that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was in my late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary group. The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. Why did Wittgenstein not view himself as a logical positivist? The Circle admired Wittgenstein, but he was not inclined to reciprocate. He thought that they misunderstood what he was attempting to do. He was willing to meet with individual members of the Circle, with people like Schlick, Carnap, Feigl etc. but he refused to meet with the Circle as a whole. What, if any, the principal difference(s) between their philosophies in these early days. I can see why there is a difference between Popper and Logical Positivism --the question of verfiability over falsifiablity. There were differences with in the Circle over such issues as physicalist realism versus phenonomenalism, coherence theories of truth versus correspondence theories of truth. Later on there were somewhat different understandings of what was entailed by the unity of science. Did that mean that a straight forward reductionist program was possible with everything being ultimately reduced to the laws of chemistry and physics, or did it simply mean that all meaningul propositions about the world, whether those propositions be from the natural sciences, or the behavioral and social sciences, were expressible in terms of physicalist language? Neurath tended to champion holistic conceptions of truth and knowledge and he shied away from extreme reductionism. His positions were thus akin to those that many Marxists have held over the years. Jim F. Paddy Hackett - Original Message - From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. Interesting. I wonder if I should put this or similar items into my bibliography. This is a Marxist advocating the Popperian approach as a way of circumventing doctrinal rigidification. Can you think of other Marxists who have taken this road? ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
I would agree with you that some of Heidegger's philosophy is important and needs to be absorbed by Marxists. I imagine you would agree that Adorno's critique of Heidegger is also important as well as being more politically conducive to the Marxist project. You have clarified matters somewhat in your reply but I still wish to ask a question. Is the value of right-wing or liberal writers that they bring into focus questions which Marxist writers haven't properly considered? I don't know if you have seen a recent book by Perry Anderson called Spectrum: from right to left in the world of ideas but he seems to hold the view that Marxist writers *have* on the whole properly considered the questions but for some unspecified reason Marxism has not won out. It's an enormous question, I know. But what do you think? Phil Walden -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 03 April 2008 08:45 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. Bad grammar aside, I thought my point was non-mysterious. If, after I've given a detailed argument as to why some philosophy is false and harmful, someone retorts that philosopher X actually had politically progressive views, why should I then be more favorably disposed towards said bullshit? Your question is the reverse: what individuals (thinkers, presumably) do I find fruitful though not politically progressive? I would imagine there must be thousands, but why is this even a question? The more important question in either of these scenarios is: is there an intrinsic connection between a body of thought and a politics, and what is its nature? The case of Heidegger is a particularly apt example, though there are countless others. At 01:36 AM 4/3/2008, Phil Walden wrote: Ralph you say that you are not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. I am intrigued by this because although I look to a range of philosophical resources - Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Jameson, etc - they do tend for me to be politically progressive figures. I wonder if you can give any examples of how you find non-politically progressive individuals to be fruitful? Phil Walden -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 03 April 2008 05:08 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. I wonder if this is unequivocally true about the Frankfurters. For sure, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse had an animus against positivism, but it is not necessarily the case that they viewed the neopositivists themselves as reactionaries. The closest approach to specific animosity I can think of is some correspondence in the '30s I read about where Horkheimer refused to participate in dialogue with Neurath, but I don't trust my memory. I would like to point out for the general purpose of such discussions, I am not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. At 08:09 PM 4/2/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 rasherrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a circle that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was in my late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary group. The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
Ralph Dumain I would like to point out for the general purpose of such discussions, I am not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. ^^^ CB: This seems to me a very central question. I don't think political questions are provincial relative to philosophy. The ultimate import of philosophy is how it comes out in politics, pretty much. The fundamental project in discovering things-in-themselves is to turn them into things-for-us ( the human race). This is the necessary unity of the projects of science-philosophy and politics. I'm not interested in philosophy and science that does not have this as its essential purpose. A concrete example of this is how modern physics was used to create nuclear weapons. I used to say that this made Einstein out as a sort of Sorcerer's Apprentice, releasing forces that he had no control over. But maybe the scientist to put in this character is Madame Curie. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
What are some of the aspects of Heidegger's philosophy that you find important ? Charles Phil Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/03/2008 9:43 AM I would agree with you that some of Heidegger's philosophy is important and needs to be absorbed by Marxists. I imagine you would agree that Adorno's critique of Heidegger is also important as well as being more politically conducive to the Marxist project. You have clarified matters somewhat in your reply but I still wish to ask a question. Is the value of right-wing or liberal writers that they bring into focus questions which Marxist writers haven't properly considered? I don't know if you have seen a recent book by Perry Anderson called Spectrum: from right to left in the world of ideas but he seems to hold the view that Marxist writers *have* on the whole properly considered the questions but for some unspecified reason Marxism has not won out. It's an enormous question, I know. But what do you think? Phil Walden -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 03 April 2008 08:45 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. Bad grammar aside, I thought my point was non-mysterious. If, after I've given a detailed argument as to why some philosophy is false and harmful, someone retorts that philosopher X actually had politically progressive views, why should I then be more favorably disposed towards said bullshit? Your question is the reverse: what individuals (thinkers, presumably) do I find fruitful though not politically progressive? I would imagine there must be thousands, but why is this even a question? The more important question in either of these scenarios is: is there an intrinsic connection between a body of thought and a politics, and what is its nature? The case of Heidegger is a particularly apt example, though there are countless others. At 01:36 AM 4/3/2008, Phil Walden wrote: Ralph you say that you are not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. I am intrigued by this because although I look to a range of philosophical resources - Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Jameson, etc - they do tend for me to be politically progressive figures. I wonder if you can give any examples of how you find non-politically progressive individuals to be fruitful? Phil Walden -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 03 April 2008 05:08 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. I wonder if this is unequivocally true about the Frankfurters. For sure, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse had an animus against positivism, but it is not necessarily the case that they viewed the neopositivists themselves as reactionaries. The closest approach to specific animosity I can think of is some correspondence in the '30s I read about where Horkheimer refused to participate in dialogue with Neurath, but I don't trust my memory. I would like to point out for the general purpose of such discussions, I am not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological implications. At 08:09 PM 4/2/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 rasherrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a circle that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was in my late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary group. The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
How does A.J. Ayer fit into this matter of the peculiarities of the reception of logical empiricism into the anglophone world. I obtained my initial more direct experience of it throug Ayer's titles? Paddy Hackett -- - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. I am interested in them because of my general interest in the philosophy of science and the broader implications: culturally, socially and politically of differing ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama?s Path
CB: When I read part of O's biography, I never got the impression he was telling an up from ashes story. He was in a middle class white family. The problem with that analysis though is most people haven't even read excerpts of his auto-biography. So when he and his Demoncrat supporters starting rambling on about how his single mother made so many sacrifices blah blah blah, what are they trying to put across? It's all right CB, every presidential candidate does this. Remember, most Americans are self-made people and/or pre-destined for heaven by God. In many other parts of the world, the self-made man story gets you nowhere. You have to brag up who you are based on the family you were born into. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:05:10 +0100 rasherrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How does A.J. Ayer fit into this matter of the peculiarities of the reception of logical empiricism into the anglophone world. I obtained my initial more direct experience of it throug Ayer's titles? Ayer was politically a social democrat. During the 1930s he flirted with joining the British CP but declined to do because of the incompatibility between diamat and his own logical empiricism. Thereafter, he was a longtime supporter of the British Labour Party, except for a few years in the early 1980s when he supported the breakaway Social Democratic Party. Paddy Hackett -- - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. I am interested in them because of my general interest in the philosophy of science and the broader implications: culturally, socially and politically of differing ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
JF: I am interested in them because of my general interest in the philosophy of science and the broader implications: culturally, socially and politically of differing philosophies of science. Concerning the Vienna Circle, I am in agreement with George Reisch that because of the peculiarities of the reception of logical empiricism into the anglophone world, especially in the US, people have generally failed to understand or appreciate the broader concerns of the Vienna Circle, so that it was generally understood in the US as having been mainly about modern logic and the philosophy of science, whereas they in fact had much broader interests. I'm interested in issues in philosophy of social sciences (psycho-, logico-formal, cognitive, linguistic, social, etc.), but my limited knowledge of the VC leads me to think (perhaps quite wrongly) there wasn't much fruitful work done amongst them in such areas. I haven't had time to search down info. on all the official members listed in that manifesto. And although Popper never got listed as a VC member (and was down officially as an opponent of the logical positivists), they published at least of his books, didn't they? Of their contemporaries, I find Husserl and Vygotsky much more interesting on scientific approaches to the social and psychological realms. And in education, I would cite Freire and his use of non-positivistic approaches. (You could say variations of positivism pervade academic social sciences in the anglophone world and much of Europe. And that would include the way academia co-opts 'practitioner sciences' in order to make more high-paying work for itself and to control certification and indoctrination in education and other applied and clinical specialities. For example, academic approaches to 'qualitative research' , 'classroom resarch', and 'action research'.) Husserl, I believe, is a hugely under-estimated influence on so much of modern and post-modern philosophy. Directly and indirectly. He got somewhat dismissed because of anglo-analytic propaganda about Frege. Popper seems to have got some of his ideas about open society directly from Husserl, but Popper is a direct product of the logical positivists/empiricists and Husserl is not. He is a true opposition to it. You can dismantle Popper with Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend. You can find parallels between late Popper and Piaget. But you can also demolish Popper using Husserl's analysis of why positivist programs fail in the 'sciences of man'. Interestingly enough Carnap's itinerant education led to his being taught by a who's who of philosophy, including Husserl, Frege, and Bruno Bauch, as well as personal correspondence with Russell. Also, you could say Heidegger's philosophy starts with the teaching of Husserl. Even Goedel cited Husserl as an influence. I should like to re-read Wittgenstein on psychology in light of having read more of Brentano, Husserl and the gestaltists. Husserl is that rationalist hinge on which so much modern and post-modern philosophy swings. So why did Husserl and Vygotsky refer to a CRISIS in naturalistic and positivist approach to the 'sciences of man'? (Though it is often forgotten that to quite an extent positivism originates in attempts to shift social philosophy into a scientific framework--such as Comte's sociology.) (I think RD has reviews and essays that relate to Husserl (such as Husserl vs. positivism). Could he post some links and excerpts if he has time? ) Here are some online Husserl and Vygotsky primary sources, typical of what I have I have been reading off and on for the past two years at marxists.org. 1. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/husserl2.htm (by the way, I have the book, but am citing an online source for list participants) small excerpt ยง61. Psychology in the tension between the (objectivistic-philosophical) idea of science and empirical procedure: the incompatibility of the two directions of psychological inquiry (the psychophysical and that of psychology based on inner experience). ALL SCIENTIFIC empirical inquiry has its original legitimacy and also its dignity. But considered by itself, not all such inquiry is science in that most original and indispensable sense whose first name was philosophy, and thus also in the sense of the new establishment of a philosophy or science since the Renaissance. Not all scientific empirical inquiry grew up as a partial function within such a science. Yet only when it does justice to this sense can it truly be called scientific. But we can speak of science as such only where, within the indestructible whole of universal philosophy, a branch of the universal task causes a particular science, unitary in itself, to grow up, in whose particular task, as a branch, the universal task works itself out in an originally vital grounding of the system. Not every empirical inquiry that can be pursued freely by itself is in this sense already a science, no matter how much
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc.
(and was down officially as an opponent of the logical positivists), they published at least of his books, didn't they? I meant to say here that the VC published at least TWO of Popper's books. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
