Justin Schwartz jschwart at
Mon Jan 23 05:25:17 MST 1995

You are probably right about returning to the concrete and addressing
conflicts that make a difference to human well being. But those of us
with training and (worse) publications in philosophy find it hard to
resist the temptation to do it. (Philosophy, that is.) No doubt we should
not be indulged.

--Justin Schwartz

On Mon, 23 Jan 1995, boddhisatva wrote:

> 	 	Mr Schwartz (et al),
> 	I would say that a return to the concrete could well benefit even the
> theoreticians among us.  I was also trying (less than successfully) to say
> thatI felt the current foundationalism/overdetermination argument could
> benefit by a return to the Marxian method of identifying conflicts, and
> proceding from that point.  So really the points are linked.
> 	As for my interjection about conflicts, I am trying to say that there
> is a basis in conflict identification for any argument to procede reasonably.
>  At the very worst, the argument could be reduced to a debate whether X is.
> or is not a conflict, but could never reduce itself below that.  My criteria
> for conflict would be a major unhappiness of such duration or intensity to
> appear structural in society.  This would necessarily be relativistic, but
> at least impose a clear and "scientific" criterion for argument.
> 	peace


More information about the Marxism mailing list