From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Feb 17 2005 - 09:08:58 EST
Jerry, Alot of critical realists are Marxists - quite a few are not, and a small number of this latter group are more or less hostile to Marx. On the Bhaskar list the recent thread you refer to is quite an isolated instance though there has been the odd individual in the past who has defended similar views on the list, (in a slightly better way than the recent thread, imo). Andy -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM Sent: Thu 17/02/2005 13:49 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Cc: Subject: [OPE-L] today's critical scientific realism > 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 : Sat Feb 19 2005 - 00:00:01 EST