==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
China Squeezes Foreigners for Share of Global Riches
By SHAI OSTER, NORIHIKO
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
An excellent example of this lingo is the HBO series Deadwood in which the
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
I was an early booster of Deadwood and participated in the internet campaign
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
Yesterday Nick Fredman of the Socialist Alliance in Australia, a very
promising
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
Solidarity after a majority vote is a principle of every political party, and
not
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
Peggy Powell Dobbins
Sociology as an Art Form
www.peggydobbins.net
Begin
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
I have not seen Deadwood and one reason is that I do not subscribe to HBO - but
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
James Butler (Wild Bill) Hickok was portrayed by Keith Carradine, and his
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
I've been down in South Beach, Florida for a week now and will be here
until the
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
Good luck, Louis. You might try to look up a man named
Jim DeFede who used to work
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
Mark me down as a fan of Deadwood as well...for all the reasons noted.
The writing
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
http://www.marxists.org/espanol/index.htm
I am going to lay my cards on the table and say that I don't think
there is any room in philosophy for theories and theses. So I get
nervous and suspicious when the 'isms' come marching by. One that
makes me particularly nervous is Scientific Realism. The reason for
that is that I think that
Rosa,
Marxist philosophy without theses ? Without theory ?
CB
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm
Theses On Feuerbach
The main defect of all hitherto-existing materialism — that of
Feuerbach included — is that the Object [der Gegenstand], actuality,
That project was exemplified in Descartes' Meditations, and it laid
two demands on any account of knowledge and the means to knowledge,
demands that set the standard and defined the adequacy of any account.
There had been urgent reasons for making those demands but the reasons
were historical
This is a commonplace analysis of Descartes critique of the whole
epistemological tradition that came out of this. However, the disavowal
of scientific realism is childish. Speaking of childish, It's worth
contemplating the symbiosis between Rosa's juvenile Wittgensteinianism
and
I was thinking of the philosophical backwardness prevalent in the Second
International. I do like this quote from Plekhanov, however:
Strictly speaking, /partisan science/ is impossible, but,
regrettably enough, the existence is highly possible of
/scientists who are imbued with the
And here we have to say that Newton was a lot clearer about the status
of what he called axioms and laws of motion than were later
generations who looked on them as universal, and perhaps providential,
truths about the cosmos. It took Henri Poincaré's hard work and
careful analysis to bring out
I tried checking the text at leninist.biz, but I found the Plekhanov
volume impossible to navigate. I wish someone would make this correction
for me, because I would like to use this quote.
It looks like I already did some preliminary spadework, viz. . . .
Neo-Kantianism, Its History,
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:22:14 -0500 Ralph Dumain
rdum...@autodidactproject.org writes:
Itsworth
contemplating the symbiosis between Rosa's juvenile
Wittgensteinianism
and sectarianism. He differs from Henry Ford in declaring that, not
history, but all philosophy, is bunk. And if
Hasn't the British SWP been an advocate of Islamism? Furthermore, being
caught in a struggle between inept arguments pro con diamat--doesn't
this drag us back to the 19th century? What progress is there is this?
On 12/30/2010 11:30 AM, Jim Farmelant wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:22:14 -0500
What's interesting about Plekhanov's Cant Against Kant is that in the
process of refuting Bernstein's scapegoating of the dialectic, Plekhanov
falters at the very moment he first cites/Engels/. If there were a
philosophical root of the confusion, here's where it would be. It begins
with the
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:40:33 -0500 c b cb31...@gmail.com writes:
Rosa,
Marxist philosophy without theses ? Without theory ?
I think that claim has to be understood within the
context of Wittgensteinian philosophy. For
Wittgenstein the only genuine propositions
are those about the external
It amazes me that this rubbish is considered the cornerstone of 20th
century philosophy. From formalism to the censorship of thought.
Ultrasophisticated juvenalia. I can see what Rosa--is Rosa really a she
or really a Rosa or Lichtenstein?--sees in this. It prevents the
self-reflection of a
Plekhanov, Georgi. Bernstein and Materialism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1898/07/bernsteinmat.html
(July 1898), in /Selected Philosophical Works/, Vol. II (Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 325-339.
I am not versed in the relations among Spinoza, LaMettrie, the
26 matches
Mail list logo
