From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Thu Feb 17 2005 - 08:49:23 EST
> Today's critical scientific realism would present the question as an > effort to specify the real definition of a natural kind. We can ask > what the generative structures are that characterize a thing and > cause its persistence as the kind of thing it is. Hi Howard: Perhaps, but some critical realists it seems don't see the merit in examining Marx's theories today. Thus, see the discussion on the critical-realism list re Han's annotations beginning with George Moore's remarks on February 5 http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/bhaskar/2005m02/msg00001.htm ] but quickly erupting into flames with Tahir's post on 2/7 followed by the thread "tahir - a jerk?". Does the question "why should we read Marx in 2005?" represent a division among critical realists (left-wing vs. not-so-left-wing?) or a case of critical realists vs. non-critical realists on the critical-realism list? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 18 2005 - 00:00:02 EST