[Marxism] Rosa L. replies to RL and LK (@Tom)
xxxxxxx99 at xxxxxxx.xxx
Wed Oct 7 17:00:47 MDT 2009
Typo! above man and woman!, sorry sorry.
From: xxxxxxx99 at xxxxxxx.xxx
To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Rosa L. replies to RL and LK (@Tom)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:58:18 +0000
Tom wrote: “hmmm . . . the origins of private property, family and the state by Engels? Clearly human ideology, including "common sense", has material roots in the evolution of humankind as does the much maligned "pragmatism", a new word for an old way of thinking I think William James characterized it, but worthy nonetheless, like "trial and error" or the "scientific method" more generally, unless we work backwards, like "Ptolemaic" medieval astronomers and creation scientists from conclusions and precepts to cherry pick facts to support our particular shibboleths. It's good that, to the extent I'm following you at this point, you're not doing that, as I've seen plenty of sectarian ideologues do that over the years.”
Talk about straw man. I’m not sure if you’ve read the posts on this thread which started last month, but the only one who’s been visceral about demonizing metaphysics, and sectarian at that by dismissing anything she doesn’t agree with as “obscure” whether it came from Marx or whoever, is Rosa. To repeat myself, what I said was the attempting a critique of anything JUST for being metaphysical because of one’s own blindness to see that one’s argument is based on metaphysical assumptions is self-defeating, unless you think this (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm#Impossibility-Of-Any-Future-Metaphysics) does the job.
As for pragmatism being bourgeois, it is so if the history of common sense assumptions and their meaning is veiled under the pretext that science is an infallible (abstract) ‘thing’ above man, as Rosa wants to keep it; and she won’t hesitate in cherry-picking quotes; when I quote Marx he’s being too obscure, when she quotes him he’s vomiting on Hegel’s grave!
There’s quite a number of things to be learnt from Kant but his project to prove that metaphysics is impossible has the aim of establishing pure ahistorical form as the sole determinant of reality, and so goes in the direction of bourgeois speculation taken to its highest point.
Tom wrote: “Also, to say that scientific theory has material roots, does not mean that it must have a "class character" in some mechanical way,…”
And I’ve never said that comrade. To repeat myself, that science develops in capitalism doesn't make it less objective or more evil, it is part of the development of capital, the barrier of which is itself, so that "capitalistic" science is cut back from its full expression.
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
More information about the Marxism