From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Wed Sep 05 2007 - 14:28:53 EDT
(JL wrote:) >><http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0709/0030.html> >> >>So, we are in agreement on the above? >> >>If not, is there anyone on the list who is able to mount a defense of the >>Kliman / McGlone position on "Marx's Marxism", "The Scorecard" as a way >> of >>resolving interpretive disputes, and the thesis that "The >> economists have only corrected Marx, in various ways; the point is to >> interpret him ... correctly"? ========================================== [Riccardo wrote:] > I do not understand you here. The message you refer is the following > [Riccardo wrote:] >>> 3. "Makes better sense of the theory as a whole": >> from which point of view? The TSSI lately rescued >> the Principle of Textual Exegesis by Stigler. It >> is very contexted, and it cannot be taken for >> granted, or as THE criterion in any absolute >> sense. If it is just assumed and put outside the >> theoretical questioning, this is strictly >> speaking dogmatism (cfr. Hegel, Introduction to >> the Phenomenology of the Spirit). Now, the key >> move of TSSI is, thanks to the PTE taken for >> granted, to say that their interpretation is no >> more an interpretation, it is Marx's himself >> speaking. And here's again dogmatism. > I wonder: can we on OPE-L arrive at a consensus over these > conclusions? > In solidarity, Jerry > > Now, of course I agree with myself. And I > understand that you agree with these phrases of > mine, and I am happy with that. > > But why should we reach a "consensus" on this list on this topic? > > Lists are done for discussions, no need to have a > consensus here, the more so on a topic like this. > I have no problem if people disagree with my > point. ========================================== Hi Riccardo: Well - of course - others can disagree with what you (and I) wrote. But, is there anything wrong with asking others on the list - if they disagree - to give reasons why and to therefore defend the statements that I think most other Marxians would consider to be dogmatic? If objections and reasoning is not forthcoming then I think it's safe to conclude that there is at least near consensus by listmembers on this question. I'm not making a proposal or suggesting a vote or suggesting that we release a public statement: I simply want to probe the extent to which there is unanymity on this question. That seems to me to be a wotrthwhile exercise. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT