JKS expressed himself rather badly for a professional philosopher, esp.
quoting Rorty, but Charles isn't making this any easier.
CB: Sez who ? :)
One big terminological point: the word 'metaphysics' has plural core
meanings, not to mention the way Engels mucked up the word by his
Jim Farmelant :
I think I made a similar point a little while back. For Engels,
metaphysics denotes theories that posit reality as understandable
in terms of eternal and unchanging being as opposed to
becoming. The logical positivists, on the other hand, used
the term to denote theories that
Volume 52, Number 20 . December 15, 2005
http://www.nybooks.com/contents/20051215
email icon http://www.nybooks.com/images/email-icon.gif Email to a friend
javascript:popUp('article-email?article_id=18570')
Letter
DARWIN PROGRESS
By Robert J. Richards
Ralph:
Remember, I said that the 'end of philosophy' had to be brought
about concretely,in every dept. of knowledge, not merely
schematically.
CB; When we read the actual quote from Engels, it is clear that far from
mucking it up, Engels said what Ralph says above long before Ralph
Ralph Dumain :
There's no measuring the harm that been done to minds weaned on
Marxism-Leninism, worst of all the mess force-fed them in philosophy.
^^^
CB; There's no measuring the self-serving arrogance in statements like the
above. This is _ad hominem_ argumentation and fails miserably the
Jim Farmelant :
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:34:54 -0500 Ralph Dumain rdumain at igc.org
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis writes:
This is meaningless verbiage. Yes, Pryor is a historically
important, in a sense, even pivotal cultural figure in American history.
But this
But wait! Either I'm not remembering my own post correctly or you're mixing up
my arguments.
BTW, Engels says something even more forceful:
The real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved
not by a few juggled phrases, but by a long and wearisome development of
I'm rather pressed for time now, so just a few sentences. But as coincidence
would have it, Riesch's HOW THE COLD WAR TRANSFORMED PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
provides excellent historical examples of the problem at hand. It was not the
case that all Marxists or even all Communist Party
Volume 52, Number 16 · October 20,
2005http://www.nybooks.com/contents/20051020
[image: email icon] Email to a
friendjavascript:popUp('article-email?article_id=18363')
Review The Wars Over Evolution By Richard C.
Lewontinhttp://www.nybooks.com/authors/4463 The
Evolution–Creation
andie nachgeborenen
One might well ask, what does it even have to do
with the needs of Marxism?
The mistaken idea of Marxism sequested off as a
separate branch of knowledge
and a special approach to science and even
philosophy--where did it come
from?
CB: Marx
Where
Ralph Dumain ___
But wait! Either I'm not remembering my own post correctly or you're mixing
up my arguments.
^^
CB; Due tell.
^^
BTW, Engels says something even more forceful:
The real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved
not by a few juggled
[Marxism-Thaxis]
Ralph Dumain
I'm rather pressed for time now, so just a few sentences. But as
coincidence would have it, Riesch's HOW THE COLD WAR TRANSFORMED PHILOSOPHY
OF SCIENCE provides excellent historical examples of the problem at hand.
It was not the case that all Marxists or even
Justin wrote:
...The Marxist-Leninists claimed to have a new discipline, but...it
was unable to solve the theoretical and practicaltasks it set for
itself (e.g., a meaningful solution to the transformation problem...
The so-called transformation problem is a pseudo problem. It
is based on
My point was just that this was a task that 2d and 3d
Int'l Marxism set for itself -- contrary to what Shane
says, it wasn't created by von B who in fact offered
a solution that works based on certain abastract and
unrealistic conditions. (That solution was adopted by
Sweezy in his Theory of
I wrote a comment to Lewontin on the below article from October. He
responded, but I want to ask him if it is ok before copying his reply to the
list.
Charles
Exchange on Darwinism
Jerry Monaco
Volume 52, Number 16 . October 20,
2005http://www.nybooks.com/contents/20051020
by
Michael Ruse
Again, briefly. See below. When I have time to write about the Reisch book,
I'll have more to say.
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Dec 12, 2005 3:05 PM
To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and
the thinkers he
Ralph Dumain
^^^
CB; Creative development was not the main thing that Marxism needed after
Marx, Engels and Lenin. Your focus on creativity is off, it belies a
professional intellectual's needs. Afterall, if there isn't that much new to
be discovered philosophically, then philosophers are
Back in October I sent a fax ( my email didn't get through to him) to
Richard Lewontin with interjection comments on his article New York Review .
He sent me a letter back. I called him and asked him if I could send his
letter to the list. He said ok. I'll copy my original note to him
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck (August 1 ,
1744 December 28 h, 1829 ) was a French naturalist and an early
proponent of the idea that evolution
Charles, M E did not have, nor prestend to have, all
the answers. Circumstances have changed, new analysis
are needed of the changed circumstances, old ideas
were left half-developed and in any case need testing
and extension -- this is totally obvious,unless you
are a fundamentalist who thinks,
20 matches
Mail list logo
