Fred, I checked out the Oxford dictionary of philosophy (admittedly not a great source since it is biased towards analytical philosophy)....and indeed, if you look up 'entity' it says 'see things'. And if you look up 'things' it says there are two possible meanings of 'entity'. The former meaning is basically your one (where 'entity' is an unrestrictive notion connoting anything within one's ontology, so including 'aspects'). And the latter is basically mine (a restrictive notion where entities/things are individual 'objects' *rather than* mere 'aspects'). So I prefer to say 'aspect' because of its added precision and because it doesn't risk being misinterpreted, in the way that I have misinterpreted your use of the term 'entity' (ie. as the latter, more restrictive meaning). This is all the more important given that value is such a mysterious and difficult notion from an ontological point of view. The more precision and the less the potential for misunderstanding, the better. Murray's notion of a 'distinction of reason' is useful here. 'Abstract labour' is indeed a 'distinction of reason'. As such it can never truly *exist* independently, though it is a distinct aspect. The peculiarity of the CMP is that abstract labour does gain 'quasi' separate exitence, as I have suggested in previous posts. Chris A's recent 'Spectral Ontology of Value' is very useful on these ontological issues (though I deeply disagree with the absence of abstract labour from Chris's initial articulation of value). So we have have reached full agreement on the issues you mention, especially, if I have persuaded you of the added clarity talking of using the term 'aspect' rather than 'entity' here. Many thanks, Andy > Thanks very much for your reply. > > Why is "entity too strong", in your view? > What is the difference between "entity" and "aspect"? > > Do you interpret "entity" to connote "independent existence" and thus no > necessary connection? > > I interpret entity to simply mean a "something distinct from other > identities", even though there may be necessary connections between these > distinct identities. > > Whatever difference there might be between entity and aspect would seem to > be very small. We seem to agree on the main points - that abstract labor > determines prices and therefore that abstract exits as a "distinct > magnitude" (defined in units of labor-time) from money, and that the > distinct existence of abstract labor as a magnitude is necessary in order > to provide a quantitative theory of value and surplus-value. > > Thanks again for the very productive discussion. > > Comradely, > Fred > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT