message unintentionally sent to me, not the list... ------- Forwarded message follows ------- > From: "Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com> To: <Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [OPE-L:5789] Re: cause(s) and consequence(s) of the Marxist 'obsession' Date sent: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:42:41 -0400 Re Andy's [5789]: > Hi Jerry, Hello again, Andy. > Re the history of the debate, and indeed the current debate, on value, TP, etc: You suggest that the justification has overwhelmingly been on some sort of defensive grounds, *rather than* on more positive grounds. This is too simplistic because this negative, defensive aspect this does not *exclude* a second, positive, aspect that drives defenders (and indeed critics) of Marx's value theory, viz. the view that getting the abstract value theory right has massive implications for more concrete work. This *second* aspect must be *the* ultimate justification and drive of value debates for there would be little of scientific merit otherwise.< Whether the debates are 'ultimately justified' is not the question. Nor does the rest of the last sentence above follow: rather than have two (main) purposes (defensive and 'positive'), there can be (and I think there has been) ONE main purpose (defensive) and a (dubious?) unintended 'positive' consequence. (also, btw, it doesn't follow that debates *in the end* can't have 'scientific merit' if one side is engaged in the debate for merely defensive purposes: it is possible that during the course of a debate the discussants 'branch out' into new directions and develop or extend their theory. Even here, though, one must judge *possible* advances in perspective through pursuing a defensive agenda -- perhaps Marxists in the TP have seen themselves as 'knights in shining armor' attempting to save the 'damsel [Marx] in distress?' -- _against_ *possible advances* in perspective that would have been gained by more actively pursing a 'positive' agenda [e.g. by 'extending Marx']). > The point is one about abstraction. The most abstract and fundamental reason for debate is the positive one. This can be seen by imagining a world where there was no need for defensive justification.< This is not the world that we live in, though. (Indeed, wouldn't there still be 'defensive justification' for different perspectives under communism? Or, under communism is everything "I'm OK, you're OK"?). > In such a world one would still end up debating the abstract stuff because of its importance.< The question isn't whether it is legitimate to debate 'abstract stuff'. The question is: what was the stated motivation for one side in the TP debate? > I do recognise that some (many, perhaps) contributors to the debate have *explicitly denied* that 'practical relevance' is their prime concern.< Which is my point. > To this I would point out that the explicit justifications scientists give for their work need not be in line with the true justification implicit. So the *significance* of what you refer to as 'manifest evidence', viz., the accounts of scientists themselves, is not so 'manifest' at all, it cannot be taken at face value as you appear to do.< Nor can it be assumed that if another *result* (i.e. consequence) emerges from a debate, that result was intended by the scientists at the time the debate was initiated. And, btw, haven't some important scientific discoveries (e.g. by Alexander Fleming) emerged as a consequence of (unintended) 'accidents'? > Re Fine's concrete contributions: most important, imo, is not any single one, but the whole lot. Why? Because when faced with the question of 'what is the point of value theory?' I can point to Fine's work and say, 'look at that and tell me there is no point!:)'. < Yet, I could say: look at some of his recent work on concrete, empirical questions and tell me that value theory is the basis for that work! (I'm thinking of some of the studies on food and consumption, etc.) > As for discussing at such concrete levels in detail, I'm not yet up to it, I'm afraid. My (minimal) competence ceases once I get past the TP (which is where my PhD ends). < Then perhaps it's time for you to move on to an examination of those more concrete levels? In solidarity, Jerry ------- End of forwarded message -------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT