[ show plain text ]
Re Paul Z's [OPE-L:3127]:
> >btw, I haven't read Spinoza in any depth and -- following my own advice
> >-- won't enter into a debate about the influence of Spinoza on Hegel.
> So, you'll discuss Hegel on your terms, while side-stepping any
> Althusserian-influenced terms! That leaves me out.
I hadn't realized that we were debating Spinoza or the influence of
Spinoza on Althusser.
> Bottom line: Nothing is accomplished on this list by telling another
> person to read someone (such is for our daughters and sons to hear from
> teachers), particularly as a general admonish to an writer and not to a
> specific paragraph. If we don't read FROM OUR OWN MOTIVATION nothing very
> good will come out of it from either point of view. Thus, there is no
> point in your telling Rakesh to "read Hegel", nor for me to tell you to
> "read Spinoza" (or Althusser).
> If the need arises to defend Rakesh again, it will be done.
Feel free to "defend" Rakesh whenever you want to -- although I think he
is quite capable of speaking for himself.
The bottom line is, from my perspective: scholarship.
On other lists there have been those who have dismissed Althusser even
though they have never read anything that Althusser has written (just
negative critiques of Althusser). When I was on some of those lists
(PEN-L a few years ago comes to mind) I made the same argument in defense
of Althusser. I.e. that the critics of Althusser have the responsibility
to *read Althusser* before putting forward a critique of Althusser. On
another list (the old marxism list a few years ago), I believe I made the
same remark in regard to Sraffa. I.e. read him before you dismiss his
works. Similarly, in academic institutions I have heard all kinds of
remarks about what Marx said from those who admitted that they have never
read Marx. My response was the same.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT