DESPAIN at econ.sbs.utah.edu
Thu Sep 28 11:23:03 MDT 1995
I usually agree with Jerry's theme but struggle with his emphases.
For example, I am not so sure that economics is "*not*" a
quantitiative subject matter. Sometimes it seems it is. In this
since it seems we should not reject non-linear equations so quickly.
The point is that we must understand what the math represents and
what it obscures.
Moreover, Jerry said "*no* math can replace the need for
abstraction and dialectics." With respect to *abstraction* (almost)
no one would disagree. However, I not so sure that dialectics cannot
be replaced. Further, dialectics is very flexible itself, we not
only need to define dialectics, but define how Marx and Marxist use
(and abuse) the term.
In the since that dialectic is so flexible, it is not dialectics (and
abstraction) which 'need to come first' but philosophical commitments
and ontology. This will determine the form the dialectic takes.
This seems to supported by Marx's comments, and Bhaskar's emphasis.
I do, however, agree with the theme of Jerry post, chaos seems to
lack such commitments in a way that dialectics (usually) does not.
Again this seems to be because chaos genisis is methodological and
despain at econ.sbs.utah
hans.despain at m.cc.utah.edu
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism