From: Stephen Cullenberg
Doug
People might be interested to know that Jack Amariglio, David Ruccio and I
have a forthcoming edited volume from Routledge on the topic Doug mentions.
. . .
Steve let me say I appreciate your persistence, in the face
of all the abuse to which I have made my own
At 02:06 PM 9/8/00 -0400, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for
reading these people?
Are these people any worse than most of the economics
literature, which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from
reality, and apologetics for the status quo?
Doug
People might be interested to know that Jack Amariglio, David Ruccio and I
have a forthcoming edited volume from Routledge on the topic Doug mentions.
The book's title is _Postmodernism, Economics and Knowledge_ and includes
contributions from a large number of folks who have written and
Stephen Cullenberg wrote:
While the book deals mainly with economics, folks might also be
interested in another event where many people broadly influenced by
postmodernism (and many who are not) will be coming together to
discuss and debate Marxism. The Marxism 2000 conference sponsored
by
Louis, you know better than to say something that is so provocative.
Louis Proyect wrote:
People might be interested to know that Jack Amariglio, David Ruccio and I
have a forthcoming edited volume from Routledge on the topic Doug mentions.
The book's title is _Postmodernism, Economics
I have read and indeed taught the major pomos poststructuralists--Derrida, DeMan,
Foucault, DeLeuze Guttari, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Rorty, and made an effort to get a
grip on Irigaray, Kristev, Butler, and Spivak. I am pretty confident that they share a
family resemblance in advocating:
1)
JKSCHW wrote,
I have read and indeed taught the major pomos
poststructuralists--Derrida, DeMan, Foucault, DeLeuze Guttari,
Baudrillard, Lyotard, Rorty, and made an effort to get a grip on
Irigaray, Kristev, Butler, and Spivak. I am pretty
confident that they share a family resemblance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for reading these people?
Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature,
which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and
apologetics for the status quo?
Doug
At 10:12 AM 9/8/00 -0700, you wrote:
". . . their epigones in the American academy amplify and vulgarize them
to a ludicrous extent. . . "
isn't that what epigones always do, no matter what the school of thought?
isn't that what defines epigones?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 02:06 PM 9/8/00 -0400, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for reading these people?
Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature, which
is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and apologetics
for the status quo?
Doug Henwood wrote:
Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature,
which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and
apologetics for the status quo?
The economists are clearly of the enemy, and are recognized as such by
all on the left. So I would say
I appreciate and am edified by Justin's summary below.
Seems to me also behind much of the work of this school of thought is the project of
getting more support for women's and gay liberation on the Left, and reputedly for
liberations of peoples of color ( socalled new social movements).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for reading these people?
Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature,
which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and
apologetics for the status quo?
Doug
Hume Deleuze, Hayek Foucault,
Jim Devine wrote:
BTW, Doug, is this the comparison we want to make (pomotistas vs.
neoclassical econ.)? isn't there a third alternative, like reading
LBO?
Well of course. But I'm biased.
Carrol Cox wrote:
The economists are clearly of the enemy, and are recognized as such by
all on the
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Hume Deleuze, Hayek Foucault, Keynes Queer Theory: clues for
inter-disciplinary research in political economy postmodern
philosophy?
Excellent idea; want to collaborate?
Doug
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Hume Deleuze, Hayek Foucault, Keynes Queer Theory: clues for
inter-disciplinary research in political economy postmodern
philosophy?
Excellent idea; want to collaborate?
Doug
That will be really interesting. As a matter of fact, it is you who
gave me a hint by
I tried to avoid getting reimmersed in these
recurrent pen-lpomo discussions, which are a sort
of chronic cyberdisease. But this latest by "jks"
was a little much.
I have read and indeed taught the major pomos
poststructuralists--Derrida,
DeMan, Foucault, DeLeuze Guttari, Baudrillard,
BUFFALOS? --jks
In a message dated Fri, 8 Sep 2000 2:45:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug Henwood wrote:
Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature,
which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and
Me, an economist? Sir, there is my gage! And having shown little interest in
philosophy? What would show a lot. pray tell, beyond gettimng a PhD in it and working
the field until the jobs ran out? --jks
In a message dated Fri, 8 Sep 2000 3:20:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood
[EMAIL
Any number of problems that Popper cited were rejected, and
finally, when Popper turned to problems of moral justification,
Wittgenstein asked for an example of a moral rule. Since Wittgenstein
had happened to pick up a poker from the fireplace and was waving it
around while making his points
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BUFFALOS? --jks
http://ils.unc.edu/~lindgren/RedOrange/index.html,
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4401/RCMain.html.
Doug
You can get the gist of most economics works fairly quickly. All the
math and the like is just used to "prove" a simple a simple point.
There is little complexity. In that respect, economics might be the
easiest discipline in the world.
The hard part is putting together all the weird little
I had the same sort of training as Ken Hanly, somewhat later on, basically
high powered analytical philosophy: rather than Austin and Bowsma, my icons
were Quine, Davidson, and Rawls, my teachers Rorty, Harman, Kuhn, and Scanlon
(undergrad), Gibbard, Railton, and Mary Hesse (grad). I did pick
Gee, it seems that either a lot of folks have read much more
post-modernist stuff than I have or maybe it's that it is easier to make
sweeping generalizations about something on the basis of hearsay. There's
a lot of crap that gets written under the pretension of
post-modernism. The same can
Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for reading these people?
I've read every postmodern philosopher literary critic of
importance (and then some); it's a part of the occupational hazards
of grad students in English. Therefore, my view is a considered
view, and if you so desire, I can
25 matches
Mail list logo
