Hello Nicky, On 8 May 2001, at 15:28, nicola taylor wrote: > Some of us will never be > convinced that language/theory/fact can be anything other than a > construction/reconstruction in thought, a product of the 'thinking head' > appropriating the world as best it can, but never perfectly (imho, *all* > theories - not only value-form theories - are appropriations of empirical > experience and existing theories, and thus imperfect understandings of > reality). We all agree with this. But the next does not follow, indeed it probably contradicts the reference to 'the world' above [a reference which implies some sort of isomorphism, or reflection relationship, between thought and reality] > We could, I suppose, adopt a Lakatosian principle and ask > whether the labour (embodied) theory of value engenders a progressive > research paradigm, spawning new and important insights into contemporary > capitalism; but who is to decide what is new, important, progressive? A > knotty problem in any debate. One obvious solution, I suppose, is to > choose not too choose: an undogmatic blossoming of ideas, a la Feyerabend > - now there's 'something nice' to put on the banner! > This is a pretty stark statement of scepticism. If you really believed what you say here (which I do not believe you possibly can) then there would be no *reason* to do anything at all. It is also a good indicator that despite the many differences between Hegelian inspired theory (such as R/W's transcendental idealism) and, say, Althusserianism, or 'traditional' interpretations of value, nearly everyone ends up agreeing with Lakatos, depsite recognising the slide to Fererabend and thence forth to oblivion.... Best wishes, Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT