From: Paul C (clyder@GN.APC.ORG)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 17:21:45 EDT
Gerald A. Levy wrote: >Hi Howard. > > > >> I'm more concerned with knowing what a clock >>is. We seem to use this result or that result to refer to the passage of >>time, some of which we call clocks, or primitive clocks. Clocks seem to >>be a time embodying mechanism, don't they -- the release of the >>spring tells us a quantity of time has passed. What about grains of gold? >>Not passing > through an hourglass, but just their weight? Why can't I >>use them to tell > time? >> >> > >You might be interested in the following passage: > >"The *clock* is based on the craftsmanship of artinsal production together >with the erudition which characterises the dawn of bourgeois society. >It gives the idea of the automatic mechanism and of automatic motion >applied to production. The history of the clock goes hand in hand with >the history of the theory of uniform motion. What, without the clock, >would be a period in which the value of the commodity, and therefore >the labour time necessary for its production, are the decisive factor?" >(Marx/Engels, _Collected Works_, Volume 33, p. 403, emphasis in >original). > > Another reason Aristotle could not have a clear idea of value. Clocks did not exist.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT