Dialectics of nature
g.maclennan at qut.edu.au
Wed Sep 11 23:14:45 MDT 1996
At 12:37 PM 9/10/96 +0000, you wrote:
>> ii) Gary, I know you should not judge people by their friends. But if I
>> judged Bakshar by his friends, I'd say he was an academic wanker, with
>> no connection to the real world at all.
>> Why should I change my mind on this ?
>> Bhaskar is very difficult to read; is he worth our efforts?
>> The answer is definitely yes, because it is impossible for ordinary
>> mortals to understand Marx's *Capital* without Bhaskar. Bhaskar is
>> developing, not from an exegesis of Marx, but from first principles,
>> and firmly anchored in modern philosophical debates, those
>> methodological underpinnings, to which Marx in the course of his work
>> became more and more committed. Marx had to resort to Hegel because
>> Hegel was the closest thing to Bhaskar's critical realism available at
>> the time. Bhaskar claims that his book "Dialectic" is the book about
>> what is rational about Hegel's method which Marx never wrote, and in
>> my view Bhaskar is right. There is a spoon list "bhaskar" which among
>> other things does a slow reading of Bhaskar's works. Send a message
>> to majordomo at lists.village.Virginia.EDU with the text
>Later, Russel Pearson writes:
>> Come on, reveal all, who are his friends?
>Read your mail, Russel.
Won't do Adam. You are still teasing. I have never known such a lack of
"in your faceness" from a member of the ISO tendency before.
Come on. Out with it. Now!
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism